Research › Browse › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

1994 DIGILAW 908 (RAJ)

Pappu v. State of Rajasthan

1994-11-17

ARUN MADAN

body1994
JUDGMENT 1. - This writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, in the matter of violation of the petitioner's fundamental right under Article 14 & 16 read with Article 39(d) of the Constitution of India and in the matter of 'equal pay for equal work' enshrined in the Constitution of India. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that he was initially appointed as a Sweeper by respondent No. 3 i.e. Superintendent of Police, Computer Centre at Jaipur in terms of order dated 7th January, 1983 initially for a period of 3 months. Thereafter the petitioner continued to perform his duties satisfactorily in pursuance of the various orders issued by respondent No. 3 from time to time. The petitioner has also mentioned in the petition a tabuler statement indicating the position in terms of the various appointment orders issued with effect from 7th January, 1983 to 20th June, 1990. A perusal of the said chart reveals that the services of the petitioner were taken by the respondents during the aforesaid period in different phases ranging from 3 months to maximum of 6 months. The emoluments of pay has also been varying from time to time, the minumum being Rs. 100/- per month and the maximum being Rs. 200/- per month, which was increased with effect from 20th June, 1994 vide Annex-24. From a perusal of the said statement it is clearly apparent that the petitioner has rendered continous service with the respondents with effect from 7th January, 1983 till date and all-through he has been working as Sweeper and treated as temporary unskilled employee. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the aforesaid emoluments which the petitioner has been drawing from time to time are not in consonance with the salary which is being actually paid and admissible to Class-IV employees appointed as Sweepers in the Police Department. According to the petitioner the minimum pay-scale which is being paid to the temporary unskilled employees is Rs. 700/- per month and that the petitioner who has continously served the respondents with effect from 7th January, 1983 till date is entitled to be given the minimum of pay-scale as admissible to Class-IV employees as per scale No. 1 of Class IV servants i.e. Rs. 700/- per month. 700/- per month and that the petitioner who has continously served the respondents with effect from 7th January, 1983 till date is entitled to be given the minimum of pay-scale as admissible to Class-IV employees as per scale No. 1 of Class IV servants i.e. Rs. 700/- per month. The petitioner has further prayed for regularisation of his services as Class-IV employee, with effect from the due date. It is further contended on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner has been discriminated in the pay and emoluments qua the similarly situated persons since the nature of work is similar and identical to that of other performing same duties in the Police Department itself, hence the differentiation in the matter of pay-scale is not based on an intelligible differentia, hence the contention of the petitioner is that the petitioner is entitled to receive the same salary as the conditions of service governing the petitioner in the regularly appointed Class-IV -servants is not in any way different than applicable to the case of the petitioner. 2. During the course of hearing, it has been brought to the notice of the Court that the petitioner who has put in more than 11 years of service with the Police Department has not yet been regularised and is still continuing on contingency basis. 3. A perusal of the reply to the writ petition filed by the respondents clearly reveals that the respondents have arbitrarily denied the regular pay-scale to the petitioner and have further not regularised the services of the petitioner on the plea that there is neither regular sanctioned post of Sweeper in the office of the respondents nor the petitioner was required to attend the office throughout the day. It is suprising to note that the petitioner, who rendered services for more than 11 years should be kept at the mercy of the respondents in this arbitrary manner on the vague plea as aforesaid. It is contended by the learned counsel for the respondents that the petitioner has been regularly discharging his duties since the date of his appointment though the temporary appointment was given to the petitioner subject to the availability of the contingency funds. This fact is borne out from the reply filed by the respondents in para 3 to the reply. It is contended by the learned counsel for the respondents that the petitioner has been regularly discharging his duties since the date of his appointment though the temporary appointment was given to the petitioner subject to the availability of the contingency funds. This fact is borne out from the reply filed by the respondents in para 3 to the reply. It has been further contended by the respondents in para 6 of the reply that the persons holding regular appointment on the posts are required to attend the office throughout the day whereas the petitioner was required to work only for 31/2 hours during the day and after that the petitioner was free to do his personal work. This contention is prima facie irrelevant as the same is not borne out from any documentory evidence on the record. 4. Shri Rathore, learned counsel for the respondents was heard at length and he has contended that he has no objection if the petitioner is fixed in the regular pay-scale of Rs. 700/- per month which is being paid to other similarly situated persons as on the date of the filing of the writ petition in this Court i.e. July 26, 1990. 5. In support of her contentions, the learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the matter of U.P. Income-tax Department Contingent Paid Staff Welfare Association v.U.O.I. & Others, reported in AIR 1988 S.C. 517 , wherein the similar question of law had arisen for consideration of the Apex Court as to whether the workmen who were belonging to the Income-tax Department and were employed on contingenet basis and who had rendered services as daily wagers for nearly 8 years or more were still entitled to be considered as daily-wagers or their services should have been regularised and paid wages by the Department at the rates equivalent to minimum pay in the pay-scale of regularly employed workmen in the corresponding cadres. The Apex Court directed the respondents to prepare a scheme on rational basis for absorbing such employees who have been continuously working for more than one year. It was further directed that the petitioners were entitled to consequential benefits which were admissible to them in accordance with rules. 6. The Apex Court directed the respondents to prepare a scheme on rational basis for absorbing such employees who have been continuously working for more than one year. It was further directed that the petitioners were entitled to consequential benefits which were admissible to them in accordance with rules. 6. Reliance was also placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the judgment of the Apex Court in the matter of Dharwad District PWD Literate Daily Wage Employees Association & Others v.State of Karnataka & Others, reported in (1990) 2 SCC 396 , wherein the Apex Court held that daily wage or casual workers working continuously for long spell of time under instrumentalities of the State must be regularised in the service on parity basis in the matter of pay fixation and the Apex Court directed that such employees should be immediately regularised in services those who had worked for long spell of time with the respective departments. 7. Reliance was also placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the judgment of Apex Court in the matter of Dhirendra Chamoli v.State of U.P., reported in 1986 (1) SCC 637 , wherein the Apex Court had taken the same view with regard to the employees working in Nehru Yuvak Kendras, who are considered to be performing the same duties as Class-IV employees and the Apex Court had given the direction that the petitioner was entitled to fixation of minimum pay-scale of Class-IV employees with effect from the date of his first appointment and was also entitled to regularisation of his services. 8. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and examining the rival contentions and also on the perusal of the documents tendered on the record, I am of the view that the petitioner is entitled to succeed. Consequently the writ petition is allowed with costs. The respondents are directed to regularise the services of the petitioner in the regular pay-scale of Sweeper in the corresponding cadre i.e. pay-scale of Class-IV employees (Scale No.1) with effect from the date of the presentation of the writ petition in this Court i.e. 26.7.90. It is further directed that the regularisation of the petitioner should be made from the date when the petitioner had achieved semi-permanent status. The petitioner will be entitled to all consequential benefits in accordance with rules. It is further directed that the regularisation of the petitioner should be made from the date when the petitioner had achieved semi-permanent status. The petitioner will be entitled to all consequential benefits in accordance with rules. The arrears, if any, due to the petitioner shall be paid within 2 months from the date of producing the certified copy of this order to the respondents No.2 and 3.Petition allowed with costs. *******