ORDER : 1. Petitioner claims that despite having been appointed as a part time employee, she continued to discharge the duties of a whole time worker for many years. She accordingly filed a petition praying for regularization of her services either as Class-III or Class-IV employee and equivalent wages for the duties discharged by her for the period on the analogy of equal pay for equal work. Learned erstwhile Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal (‘Tribunal’ for short) did not find favour in her claim. Her petition was dismissed. Hence, she has moved instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. During hearing of the case, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner’s services have been regularized by the respondents during pendency of the instant petition and that the petitioner is satisfied with her regularization order. Learned Senior Counsel confined her submissions only for grant of wages to the petitioner commensurate to the work taken from her. We have accordingly heard the matter only regarding this issue. 2. Facts: (i) Petitioner was appointed as part time Class-IV worker/Sweeper in the office of respondent No. 2 on 20.5.2002. On completion of ten years of part time service, she was appointed as a daily waged Class-IV employee on 6.6.2012. As noted earlier, her services now stand regularized. (ii) Some facts leading to filing of instant petition may be noticed. Petitioner filed civil writ petition bearing CWP No. 6713 of 2014 in this Court impugning therein the order dated 6.6.2012, whereby she was conferred daily waged status of Class-IV worker. She claimed that she was entitled for regularization as Class-IV/Class-III employee. The writ petition was disposed off on 19.9.2014 with a direction to the competent authority to decide petitioner’s representation within a time bound schedule. The competent authority rejected petitioner’s representation on 12.12.2014. Petitioner filed another writ petition challenging the order dated 12.12.2014. She also claimed therein relief of her regularization as Class-III/Class-IV employee alongwith consequential benefits. This writ petition was transferred to the learned Tribunal. The petition was dismissed as T.A. No. 1417/2015 by the learned Tribunal vide order dated 7.12.2015. Taking note of the fact that Smt. Sudha Devi (regular peon) had availed only 214 days’ earned leave from 2007 to 2014, learned Tribunal held that the petitioner could not prove her claim of having worked whole time ever since the year 2007. The petition was dismissed as T.A. No. 1417/2015 by the learned Tribunal vide order dated 7.12.2015. Taking note of the fact that Smt. Sudha Devi (regular peon) had availed only 214 days’ earned leave from 2007 to 2014, learned Tribunal held that the petitioner could not prove her claim of having worked whole time ever since the year 2007. Review Petition No. 13/2015 filed by the petitioner was also dismissed by the Tribunal on 17.4.2017. These orders passed by the Tribunal dismissing her main petition as well as review petition have also been assailed in the instant petition. Petitioner has also questioned the order dated 12.12.2014 passed by the competent authority rejecting her representation. 3. Contentions: (i) Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been performing the job of a whole time worker w.e.f. the year 2007. Petitioner continued to discharge such duties till 06.06.2012 when she was actually appointed as a daily wager on completion of ten years of part time service. Petitioner, therefore, is entitled to the wages of whole time employee w.e.f. the year 2007 to 06.06.2012. We have been taken through various documents in support of this factual plea. The documents relied by learned Senior Counsel in support of this plea are as under: (a) Office letter dated 07.04.2007 written by the District Statistical Officer, Shimla to respondent No. 2 stating that two Class-IV employees were there in the office, out of which, one employee, namely, Rajpal Chauhan had been deployed in the Secretariat for past about a year and the other employee, namely, Smt. Sudha (not the petitioner) was on medical leave w.e.f. 12.03.2007 on account of disc problem. The letter acknowledges that for the above reason there was no Class-IV employee in the office, resultantly entire work was being taken from the petitioner - a part time Class-IV employee. The request was made in the letter to grant daily wages to the petitioner. (b) Office letter dated 11.5.2007 addressed to respondent No. 2 by the District Statistical Officer, Shimla requesting for taking action on the previous letter dated 07.04.2007. (c) Office letter dated 18.5.2007 from the District Statistical Officer, Shimla to respondent No. 2 stating that because of non-availability/illness of the two Class-IV employees posted in the office, the entire work including opening and closing of office as well as distribution of dak etc. was being taken from the petitioner. (c) Office letter dated 18.5.2007 from the District Statistical Officer, Shimla to respondent No. 2 stating that because of non-availability/illness of the two Class-IV employees posted in the office, the entire work including opening and closing of office as well as distribution of dak etc. was being taken from the petitioner. The District Statistical, Officer in the circumstances requested for providing services of a Peon. (d) Office letter dated 26.9.2014 addressed by the District Statistical Officer, Shimla to respondent No. 2. The letter mentions acute shortage of Peons in the office for years together as a result whereof for the last 7-8 years additional work was being taken from the part time employee i.e. petitioner. The letter requested for deployment of a Peon in the said office. The letter also states that right from the year 2007 onwards repeated communications in this regard viz. 07.04.2007, 18.05.2007 etc. have already been addressed by the office to respondent No. 2. (ii) The respondents have opposed the factual plea taken by the petitioner. The arguments advanced by the respondents are that the petitioner had claimed the reliefs sought by her at the instance of Senior Assistants and the District Statistical Officer, now re-designated as Research Officer. That Senior Assistants being holder of Class-III posts have no authority to write letters in favour of the petitioner to the higher authority. That there is no documentary record which proves full day’s working of the petitioner. That the petitioner has advanced false plea of doing the duties of Peon/whole timer worker w.e.f. the year 2007 as the officer posted in District Statistical Office, Shimla had never issued any order or instructions to extract full day work from her. The petitioner was appointed as part time Sweeper for four hours only and this is the work which she continued to discharge till she was appointed on daily wage basis vide office order dated 6.6.2012. It has further been submitted that the District Statistical Officer, now re-designated as Research Officer, had misrepresented the matter at the behest of petitioner for extending her undue benefit. There was only one post of Peon in the District Statistical Office, Shimla against which Smt. Sudha (regular peon) was posted. The other Class-IV employee posted in the said office was Shri Rajpal Chauhan, but he was posted against the post of Chowkidar for doing night duties. There was only one post of Peon in the District Statistical Office, Shimla against which Smt. Sudha (regular peon) was posted. The other Class-IV employee posted in the said office was Shri Rajpal Chauhan, but he was posted against the post of Chowkidar for doing night duties. The petitioner had no concern with night duty of Chowkidar performed by said Shri Rajpal Chauhan. The petitioner had no concern with the duties performed by Smt. Sudha Devi (regular peon), who discharged her duties to the full satisfaction of her superior. The allegations levelled by the petitioner that Smt. Sudha Devi (regular Peon) was not in a position to attend office after March 2007 due to her ailment are incorrect. The leave account maintained in service book of said Smt. Sudha Devi in the office shows no leave entries for long period of leave on medical ground. The fact disproves petitioner’s plea for having performed the job of Peon w.e.f. 2007 till 06.06.2012. It was argued that learned Tribunal had rightly dismissed the petition. 4. Observations: (i) The petitioner has contended that though she was appointed on part time basis as Class-IV employee on 20.5.2002 in the District Statistical Office, Shimla but she was made to do full day work w.e.f. the year 2007 till 06.06.2012 when she was actually appointed on daily wage basis. Therefore, she is entitled to the wages for the work performed by her for the period 2007 to 2012. The contention has been refuted by the respondents. (ii) The petitioner might have been appointed as part time Class-IV employee/Sweeper in the year 2002 but there is documentary evidence available on record to show that she was actually made to work much more than what was required for the post of part time Sweeper held by her. A part time worker is engaged for about 4 to 5 hours of work daily. The District Statistical Officer, Shimla was the immediate superior officer of the petitioner. Various letters/correspondences exchanged by the District Statistical Officer with his higher ups from the year 2007 onwards as available on record are a clear indicator of the fact that additional office work had been taken from the petitioner for many years. The District Statistical Officer, Shimla was the immediate superior officer of the petitioner. Various letters/correspondences exchanged by the District Statistical Officer with his higher ups from the year 2007 onwards as available on record are a clear indicator of the fact that additional office work had been taken from the petitioner for many years. The District Statistical Officer, Shimla had expressed his helplessness in these office communications (noticed earlier) in taking extra work from the petitioner on the ground that the office had only two class-IV workers; one Smt. Sudha Devi (regular peon), who because of her ailment had not been able to perform duties up to the mark and had also remained on medical leave off and on the other class-IV employee Shri Rajpal Chauhan was statedly deployed in the H.P. Secretariat. Faced with shortage of Class-IV employees, the District Statistical Officer, Shimla has admitted taking additional work from the petitioner w.e.f. March 2007 to 06.06.2012. This fact has been acknowledged by the District Statistical Officer, Shimla even in the office letter dated 26.9.2014 addressed to respondent No. 2. 4(iii)(a) Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Punjab and Others vs. Jagjit Singh and Others, (2017) 1 SCC 148 summarized following conclusions with reference to claim of pay parity raised by temporary/work charged/daily waged/casual/ad-hoc/ contractual employees: “44. We shall first outline the conclusions drawn in cases where a claim for pay parity, raised at the hands of the temporary employees concerned was accepted by this Court, by applying the principle of ‘equal pay for equal work’ with reference to regular employees: 44.1. In the Dhirendra Chamoli Case (1986) 1 SCC 637 this Court examined a claim for pay parity raised by temporary employees, for wages equal to those being disbursed to regular employees. The prayer was accepted. The action of not paying the same wage, despite the work being the same, was considered as violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. It was held, that the action amounted to exploitation in a welfare state committed to a socialist pattern of society. 44.2. In the Surinder Singh Case (1986) 1 SCC 639 , this Court held that the right of equal wages claimed by temporary employees emerged, inter-alia, from Article 39 of the Constitution. It was held, that the action amounted to exploitation in a welfare state committed to a socialist pattern of society. 44.2. In the Surinder Singh Case (1986) 1 SCC 639 , this Court held that the right of equal wages claimed by temporary employees emerged, inter-alia, from Article 39 of the Constitution. The principle of ‘equal pay for equal work’ was again applied, where the subject employee had been appointed on temporary basis, and the reference employee was borne on the permanent establishment. The temporary employee was held entitled to wages drawn by an employee on the regular establishment. In this judgment, this Court also took note of the fact, that the above proposition was affirmed by a Constitution Bench of this Court, in the D.S. Nakara Case (1983) 1 SCC 305 . 44.3. In the Bhagwan Dass Case (1987) 4 SCC 634 , this Court recorded that in a claim for equal wages, the duration for which an employee would remain (- or had remained) engaged, would not make any difference. So also, the manner of selection and appointment would make no difference. And therefore, whether the selection was made on the basis of open competition or was limited to a cluster of villages, was considered inconsequential, insofar as the applicability of the principle is concerned. And likewise, whether the appointment was for a fixed limited duration (six months, or one year), or for an unlimited duration, was also considered inconsequential, insofar as the applicability of the principle of ‘equal pay for equal work’ is concerned. It was held that the claim for equal wages would be sustainable, where an employee is required to discharge similar duties and responsibilities as regular employees and the concerned employee possesses the qualifications prescribed for the post. In the above case, this Court rejected the contention advanced on behalf of the Government that the plea of equal wages by the employees in question, was not sustainable because the employees concerned were engaged in a temporary scheme, and against posts which were sanctioned on a year to year basis. 44.4. In the above case, this Court rejected the contention advanced on behalf of the Government that the plea of equal wages by the employees in question, was not sustainable because the employees concerned were engaged in a temporary scheme, and against posts which were sanctioned on a year to year basis. 44.4. In the Daily Rated Casual Labour Case (1988) 1 SCC 122 , this Court held that under the principle flowing from Article 38(2) of the Constitution, the Government could not deny a temporary employee, at least the minimum wage being paid to an employee in the corresponding regular cadre, alongwith dearness allowance and additional dearness allowance, as well as, all the other benefits which were being extended to casual workers. It was also held that the classification of workers (as unskilled, semi-skilled and skilled), doing the same work, into different categories, for the payment of wages at different rates, was not tenable. It was also held that such an act of an employer, would amount to exploitation. And further that, the same would be arbitrary and discriminatory, and therefore, violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. 44.5. In State of Punjab vs. Devinder Singh, (1998) 9 SCC 595 , this Court held that daily- wagers were entitled to be placed in the minimum of the pay-scale of regular employees, working against the same post. The above direction was issued after accepting that the employees concerned were doing the same work as regular incumbents holding the same post by applying the principle of “equal pay for equal work.” 44.6. In State of Karnataka Case (2006) 4 SCC 1 , a Constitution Bench of this Court, set aside the judgment of the High Court, and directed that daily-wagers be paid salary equal to the lowest grade of salary and allowances being paid to regular employees. Importantly, in this case, this Court made a very important distinction between pay parity and regularization. It was held that the concept of equality would not be applicable to issues of absorption/regularization. But, the concept was held as applicable, and was indeed applied, to the issue of pay parity – if the work component was the same. The judgment rendered by the High Court was modified by this Court, and the concerned daily-wage employees were directed to be paid wages, equal to the salary at the lowest grade of the cadre concerned. 44.7. The judgment rendered by the High Court was modified by this Court, and the concerned daily-wage employees were directed to be paid wages, equal to the salary at the lowest grade of the cadre concerned. 44.7. In State of Haryana vs. Charanjit Singh, (2006) 9 SCC 321 , a three-Judge bench of this Court held that the decisions rendered by this Court in State of Haryana vs. Jasmer Singh, (1996) 11 SCC 77 , State of Haryana vs. Tilak Raj, (2003) 6 SCC 123 , Orissa University of Agriculture and Technology Case (2003) 5 SCC 188 and Government of West Bengal vs. Tarun K. Roy, (2004) 1 SCC 347 , laid down the correct law. Thereupon, this Court declared that if the daily-wage employees concerned could establish that they were performing equal work of equal quality and all other relevant factors were fulfilled, a direction by a Court to pay such employees equal wages (from the date of filing the writ petition), would be justified. 44.8. In State of U.P. vs. Putti Lal, (2006) 9 SCC 337 , based on decisions in several cases (wherein the principle of ‘equal pay for equal work’ had been invoked), it was held that a daily-wager discharging similar duties, as those engaged on regular basis, would be entitled to draw his wages at the minimum of the pay-scale (drawn by his counterpart, appointed on regular basis), but would not be entitled to any other allowances or increments. 44.9. In U.P. Land Development Corporation Case (2010) 7 SCC 739 , this Court noticed that the respondents were employed on contract basis, on a consolidated salary. But, because they were actually appointed to perform the work of the post of Assistant Engineer, this Court directed the employer to pay the respondents wages, in the minimum of the pay-scales ascribed for the post of Assistant Engineer.” Hon’ble Apex Court concluded that it would be fallacious to determine artificial parameters to deny fruits of labour. The principle of ‘equal pay for equal work’ has also been extended to differently described temporary employees. Relevant paras from the judgment read as under: “57. There is no room for any doubt, that the principle of ‘equal pay for equal work’ has emerged from an interpretation of different provisions of the Constitution. The principle of ‘equal pay for equal work’ has also been extended to differently described temporary employees. Relevant paras from the judgment read as under: “57. There is no room for any doubt, that the principle of ‘equal pay for equal work’ has emerged from an interpretation of different provisions of the Constitution. The principle has been expounded through a large number of judgments rendered by this Court and constitutes law declared by this Court. The same is binding on all the courts in India under Article 141 of the Constitution of India. The parameters of the principle have been summarized by us in paragraph 42 hereinabove. The principle of ‘equal pay for equal work’ has also been extended to temporary employees (differently described as work-charge, daily-wage, casual, ad-hoc, contractual, and the like). The legal position, relating to temporary employees, has been summarized by us in paragraph 44 hereinabove. The above legal position which has been repeatedly declared is being reiterated by us yet again. 58. In our considered view, it is fallacious to determine artificial parameters to deny fruits of labour. An employee engaged for the same work cannot be paid less than another, who performs the same duties and responsibilities. Certainly not, in a welfare state. Such an action besides being demeaning, strikes at the very foundation of human dignity. Any one, who is compelled to work at a lesser wage, does not do so voluntarily. He does so to provide food and shelter to his family, at the cost of his self respect and dignity, at the cost of his self worth, and at the cost of his integrity. For he knows, that his dependents would suffer immensely, if he does not accept the lesser wage. Any act, of paying less wages, as compared to others similarly situate constitutes an act of exploitative enslavement, emerging out of a domineering position. Undoubtedly, the action is oppressive, suppressive and coercive as it compels involuntary subjugation.” (iii) Union of India and Others vs. Ilmo Devi and Another, AIR 2021 SC 4855 decided by the Apex Court on 7.10.2021 was a case where after considering various previous judgments, the Apex Court held that part time employees are not entitled to seek regularization as they were not working against any sanctioned posts. Such employees cannot claim parity in salary with regular employees on the principle of equal pay for equal work. Such employees cannot claim parity in salary with regular employees on the principle of equal pay for equal work. Article 39(d) of Constitution of India provides for equal wages for equal work. (iv) In the instant case, what comes out is that the petitioner was engaged as part time worker on 20.5.2002 in the office of the District Statistical Officer, Shimla. W.e.f. the year 2007 onwards the office felt acute shortage of Class-IV employees. It appears from the record that this office had one regular peon i.e. Smt. Sudha and a Chowkidar i.e. Sh. Rajpal Chauhan. Smt. Sudha, it seems, perhaps because of her illness or otherwise either used to remain on leave off and on or was unable to discharge effective duties. Shri Rajpal Chauhan was also deployed in the H.P. Secretariat and did not discharge duties in the office. Under the circumstances, the higher officials in this office started taking additional work from the petitioner. Petitioner, as per the official correspondences available on record, performed the duties of diary-dispatch work, opening and closing of office and various other miscellaneous works of the office. This fact of extracting additional work from the petitioner was brought to the notice of respondent No. 2 by her immediate higher officers with request to pay her wages for the work performed by her. On account of shortage of peons, the District Statistical Officer, Shimla also requested for deployment of one peon in the office. Though correspondence is there on record where the District Statistical Officer was chided by respondent No. 2 for sending such kind of office letters in favour of the petitioner but the fact remains that much more office work had been extracted from the petitioner in addition to the work for which she was employed during the year 2007 to 06.06.2012 when she was actually made a whole time/daily wager. Having said this, we may also observe that there is no clarity with regard to the exact nature of work actually performed by the petitioner in addition to her normal duties and the duration thereof during this period. The only thing certain is that she performed much more work than her normal duty hours from the year 2007 to 06.06.2012. Therefore, to balance the scales and in the interest of equity, justice and good conscious, we deem it appropriate to grant a lump sum payment of Rs. The only thing certain is that she performed much more work than her normal duty hours from the year 2007 to 06.06.2012. Therefore, to balance the scales and in the interest of equity, justice and good conscious, we deem it appropriate to grant a lump sum payment of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees two lacs) in favour of the petitioner for the additional work she performed during the period in question. We direct the respondents to pay this amount to the petitioner within a period of two months from today, failing which, it shall carry interest @ 7% per annum. Impugned orders passed by the learned Tribunal on 17.12.2015 and 17.4.2017 as well as order dated 12.12.2014 passed by the respondents are set aside to this extent. 5. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is disposed of, so also the pending miscellaneous applications, if any.