Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 363 (HP)

SHER SINGH v. HPSEB

2004-12-30

BAKHSHISH KAUR, D.S.AMIST

body2004
JUDGEMENT Ms. Justice Bakhshish Kaur, Chairman.: - The application Is against non payment of wages of daily rated Clerks and alike to the applicant for performing the duties of clerk against which he has actually worked despite the fact that persons junior to him have been regularized. 2. The facts in the OA briefly stated are that the applicant was employed as daily wages beldar in the year 1979, but he was assigned the duty of Clerk as is evident from the list annexed with letter dated 17.3.1986 submitted to the higher authorities, copy where of is annexure A-1. The applicant being similarly situated person as petitioner allowed benefit in CWP 647/84 titled Tirath Raj and others Vs. HP. State Electricity Board and others. 3. The applicant made representation to the respondents vide application dated 2.1.1988, followed by reminders Annexures A-5 to A-10 that he may be paid the daily wages of Clerk as per notification dated 20.11.1987 Annexure A-2. He was informed that the concerned record for the period in question has been transferred to the Resident Engineer, Bassi Power House Division, Jogindernagar, thus he was advised to take up the matter with the concerned office Accordingly he submitted representation annexure A-6 dated 11.3.1988. However, his claim was not accepted on the ground that it is not based on facts. The applicant, therefore, claimed wages on the principle of equal pay for equal work. He has therefore, sought the following reliefs: (a) To set aside the order dated 20.Z 1993 (Annexure A-21). (b) To direct the respondent Board to pay the wages of daily rated clerks to the applicant from the date of his initial appointment i.e. the date from which he has been performing the duties of Clerk or the alike though employed as daily rated beldars on Muster rolls. (c) To direct the respondents to pay the arrears of wages as has been done in respect of similarly situated persons in the light of the directions of the Honble Court in the case of Shri Tirath Raj and others verses HPSEB and ors. And to give the applicant the same relief to which he is entitled to as a result of the said judgment and subsequent order of the Honble Supreme Court. (d) To regularize the services of the applicant with effect from the date persons junior to him have been regularized with all consequential benefits. And to give the applicant the same relief to which he is entitled to as a result of the said judgment and subsequent order of the Honble Supreme Court. (d) To regularize the services of the applicant with effect from the date persons junior to him have been regularized with all consequential benefits. (e) That the respondents may be burdened with the costs of this application. (f) That the respondents may be directed to produce the entire record pertaining to t he case, including the seniority list maintained by them in respect of the daily rated workmen including the applicant (g) Any other order deemed just and proper m the facts and circumstances of the case may also be passed in favour of the applicant and against the respondents. (h) The application may kindly be allowed with costs through." 4. The respondents have resisted the claim of the respondents inter-alia on the ground that he had filed OA earlier which was treated as representation. The facts mentioned in the said OA/representation were investigated by the concerned officer. Thus his claim for Clerk w.e.f. 27.8.1979 to 26.10.1986 was not accepted and the same was rejected. However, it was found that he has worked as Clerk w.e.f. 27.10.1986 to 31.7.1987 under P.I.D. No. 1 Kullu and w.e.f. 1.8.1987 onward to date under Thiriot Construction Division No.1 Bhunter. Though the applicant is claiming that he has been working right form H\e day of his deployment and has sought for clerk wages for period form 27.8.1979 to 26.10.1986 besides regularization as Clerk from the date juniors were regularized The secretary, HP. State Electricity Board while deciding the representation of the applicant as per order annexure A-21 has observed that from the report of the Executive Engineer, HID Mandi and from available record the applicant did not work as daily waged Clerk during this period. However he is recorded/worked as daily wage clerk only w.e.f. 27.10.1986 which has also been verified by the screening committee constitute by the HPSEB for verifying the record of daily wage workers. 5. For whatever the period of the applicant has worked as verified by the respondents, with the help of record as above the applicant is entitled to difference of wages on the principle of equal pay for equal work. 6. In Tirath Raj and others vs. HP. 5. For whatever the period of the applicant has worked as verified by the respondents, with the help of record as above the applicant is entitled to difference of wages on the principle of equal pay for equal work. 6. In Tirath Raj and others vs. HP. State Electricity Board and others, ILR 1987 HP 485 after referring a number of decision of the Honble Supreme Court the Division Bench of Honble High Court of H.P. has said that such type of discriminatory treatment is made out to the daily in the matter of payment of wages and daily rated cannot be discriminated. 7. In "Daily Rated Casual Labour employed under P and T Department through Bhartiya Dak Tar Mazdoor Mach vs. Union of India and others AIR 1987 SC 2342/ an argument of somewhat similar nature in reply to a claim for equal pay for equal work’ was repelled. 8. The applicant is therefore, entitled to the wages payable to the Clerk from 2710.1986 onwards and not form the period from 27.8.1979 to 26.10.1986 because it is also apparent form the order Annexure A-21 that he has been working as daily wages on various capacity i.e. beldar, mason-11, Work Mistry Supervisor and Chowkidar. From 1.4.1985 to 26.10.1986 he worked as daily wage Chowkidar under HID Mandi and as daily wage Clerk w.e.f. 27.10.1986 on the principle of equal pay for equal work. -