Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 406 (HP)

RAJINDER SINGH v. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

2010-03-05

RAJIV SHARMA

body2010
JUDGMENT Rajiv Sharma, J.(Oral)-Petitioner was appointed as a daily wage labourer in the year, 1986. The respondent-State has issued notifications on 15.5.1990 (Annexure A-II), 23.8.1991 (Annexure AIII), 01.06.1992 (Annexure A-IV) and 21.06.1993 (Annexure A-IV(a), whereby the following daily wages were prescribed for Class-IV employees: (i) 15.5.1990(Annexure A-II) = 34.50/-. (ii) 23.8.1991(Annexure A-III) = 37.75/-. (iii) 01.06.1992(Annexure A-IV) = 42.40/-. (iv) 21.06.1993(Annexure A-IV(a) = 45.75/-. 2. Petitioner has not been paid these enhanced wages despite the issuances of these notifications. The stand of the respondents is that the petitioner was not appointed against the sanctioned post and his name was not sponsored by the employment exchange. This ground is not permissible. In fact, the petitioner had been working as daily wage labourer. He was entitled to the enhanced wages as per the notifications issued by the State Government from time to time, as noticed hereinabove. The objection taken by the respondent-State is no more available in view of the law laid down by their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bhagwan Dass and others versus State of Haryana and others, AIR 1987 Supreme Court 2049. Their Lordships have held as under: “11.With regard to the next contention viz. that the mode of recruitment of the petitioners is different from the mode of recruitment of respondents 2 to 6. we are afraid it is altogether without substance. The contention has been raised in the following terms (para 4(d) of the Counter-affidavit dated 6-1-1986 filed on behalf of respondents 1 to 13) :- "It is absolutely incorrect that the petitioners are similarly placed as the employees under the Social Education Scheme as alleged. The latter are whole-time employees selected by the subordinate services Selection Board after competing with candidates from any part of the country. In the case of petitioners, normally the selection at best is limited to the candidates from the cluster of a few villages only. The contention made by the Petitioners has no justifiable basis." (Emphasis added) We need not enter into the merits of the respective modes of selection. In the case of petitioners, normally the selection at best is limited to the candidates from the cluster of a few villages only. The contention made by the Petitioners has no justifiable basis." (Emphasis added) We need not enter into the merits of the respective modes of selection. Assuming that the selection of the petitioners has been limited to the cluster of a few villages, whereas respondents 2 to 6 were selected by another mode wherein they had faced competition from candidates from all over the country, we need not examine the merits of these modes for the very good reason that once the nature and functions and the work are not shown to be dissimilar the fact that the recruitment was made in one way or the other would hardly be relevant from the point of view of "equal pay for equal work" doctrine. It was open to the State to resort to a selection process whereat candidates from all over the country might have competed if they so desired. If however they deliberately chose to limit the selection of the candidates from a cluster of a few villages it will not absolve the State from treating such candidates in a discriminatory manner to the disadvantage of the selectees once they are appointed, provided the work done by the candidates so selected is similar in nature. It was perhaps considered advantageous to make recruitment from the cluster of a few villages for the purposes of the Adult Education Scheme because the Supervisors appointed from that area Would know the people of that area more intimately and would be in a better position to persuade them to take advantage of the Adult Education Scheme in order to make it a success. So also it was perhaps considered desirable to take recourse to this mode of recruitment of candidates because candidates from other parts of the country would have found it inconvenient and onerous to seek employment in such a Scheme where they would have to work amongst total strangers and it would have made it difficult for them to discharge their functions of persuading the villagers to avail of the Adult Education Scheme on account of that factor. So also they might not have been tempted to, compete for these posts in view of the fact that the Scheme itself was for an uncertain duration and could have been discontinued at any time. Be that as it may, so long as the petitioners are doing work which is similar to the work performed by respondents 2 to 6 from the standpoint of equal work for equal pay doctrine, the petitioners cannot be discriminated against in regard to pay scales. Whether equal work is put in by a candidate selected by a process whereat candidates from all parts of the country could have competed or whether they are selected by a, process where candidates from only a cluster of a few villages could have completed (competed) is altogether irrelevant and immaterial, for the purposes of the applicability of equal work for equal pay doctrine. A typist doing similar work as another typist cannot be denied equal pay on the ground that the process of selection was different inasmuch as ultimately the work done is similar and there is no rational ground to refuse equal pay for equal work. It is quite possible that if he had to compete with candidates from all over the country, he might or might not have been selected. It would be easier for him to be selected when the selection is limited to a cluster of a few villages. That however is altogether a different matter. It is possible that he might not have been selected at all if he had to compete against candidates from all over the country. But once he is selected, whether he is selected by one process or the other, he cannot be denied equal pay for equal work without violating the said doctrine. This plea raised by the respondent-State must also fail.” 3. The case of the petitioner is also covered under the principle of “equal pay for equal work”. 4. Accordingly, in view of the observations made hereinabove, the petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to pay enhanced wages to the petitioner from the due date as per Annexures A-II to A-IV(A) within a period of four weeks from today. The amount shall carry interest @6% per annum. No costs.