State
of Haryana & Ors Vs. Jasmer Singh &
Ors [1996] INSC 1417 (7
November 1996)
A.M.
Ahmadi, Sujata V. Manohar Mrs. Sujata V.Manohar, J.
ACT:
HEAD NOTE:
WITH 14224-14362
CIVIL APPEAL NOS ...........................OF 1996 (Arising out of SLP(C)
Nos.27151-27154/95, 2715527157/95, 27158-27160/95, 27161/95, 27162/95,
582/96,590-595/96 2898- 2913/96, 3549-3553/96,SLP(C)22115../96 CC 472, SLP(C)
22114 /96 CC420, SLP(C) Nos.8284-8287/96, 8055-8084/96, 10341- 10343/96,
15239-15241/96, 15242-15250/96, 13967-14006/96, 4213- 4220/96
Delay
condoned.
Leave
granted.
These
appeals have been filed by the State of Haryana against the various judgments of the Punjab and Haryana High Court granting to perons employed by the
State of Haryana on daily wages the same pay as
those holding regular posts in Govt. service. For the sake of convenience the
particulars of special leave petition No.27150 of 1995 are set out.
The
respondents are employed as Mali-cum Chowkidars/Pump
Operators on daily wages by the State of Haryana from different dates. The respondents prayed that on the basis of'equal
pay for equal work' they should be paid the same salary as is being paid to
regularly employed persons holding similar posts in the services of the State
of Haryana. This prayer was granted by the High Court which directed the State
of Haryana to pay to the respondents the same salary and allowances as are beinq
paid to regular employees holding similar posts with effect from the dates the
respondents were employed on the posts held by them.
The
principle of 'equal pay for equal work' is not always easy to apply. There are
inherent difficulties in comparing and evaluating work done by different organisations,
or even in the same organisation. The principle was originally enunciated as a
part of the Directive Principles of State Policy in article 39(d) of the
Constitution. In the case of Randhir Singh v. Union of India & Ors. (1982 1
SCC 618), however, this Court said that this was a constitutional goal capable
of being achieved through constitutional remedies and held that the principle
had to be read into Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
In
that case a Driver-constable in the Delhi Police Force under the Delhi
Administration claimed equal salary as other Drivers and this prayer was
granted. The same principle was subsequently followed for the purpose of
granting relief in Dhirendra, Chamoli & Anr. v. State of U. P. (1986 1 SCC
637) and Jaipal & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Ors.(1988 3 SCC 354). In the case of Federation of All India
Customs and Central Excise Stenographers (Recognised), & Ors. v. Union of India &
ors. (1988 3 SCC 91), however, this Court explained the principle of 'equal pay
for eaual work' by holding that differentiation in pay-scales among government
servants holding same posts and performing similar work on the basis of
difference in the degree of responsibility, reliability and confidentiality
would be a valid differentiation. In that case different pay-scales fixed for
Stenographers (Grade I) working in the Central Secretariat and those attached
to the heads' of subordinate offices on the basis of a recommendation of the
Pay Commission was held as not violating Article 14 and as not being contrary
to the principle of equal pay for equal work'. This Court also said that the
judgment of administrative authorities concerning the responsibilities which
attach to the post, and the degree of reliability expected of an incumbent,
would be a value judgment of the concerned authorities which, if arrived at
bona fide, reasonably and rationally, was not open to interference by the
court.
In the
case of State of U.P. & Ors. v. J.P. Chaurasia & Ors. (1989 1 SCC 121)
this Court again sounded a note of caution. It pointed out that the Principle
of 'equal pay for equal work' has no mechanical application in every case of
similar work. Article 14 permits reasonable classification based on qualities
or characteristics of persons recruited and grouped together, as against those
who are left out. Of course, these qualities or characteristics must have a
reasonable relation to the object sought to be achieved. In the case before the
Court, the Bench Secretaries in the High Court of Allahabad claimed the same
pay as Section Officers.
While negativing
this claim, the court said that in service matters merit or experience can be e
proper basis for classification for the purposes of pay in order to promote
efficiency in administration. That apart, a higher pay-scale to avoid
stagnation or resultant frustration for lack of promotional avenues is also an
acceptable reason for pay differentiation. It observed that although all Bench
Secretaries may do the same work, their quality of work may differ. Bench
Secretaries (Grade I) are selected by a Selection Committee on the basis of
merit with due regard to seniority. A higher pay-scale granted to such Bench
Secretaries who are evaluated by competent authority cannot be challenged.
In the
case of Mewa Ram Kanojia v. All India Institute of Medical Sciences & Ors.
(1989 2 SCC 235), a classification based on difference in educational
qualifications was held as justifying a difference in pay- scales. This Court
further observed that the judgment of the Pay Commission in this regard
relating to the nature of the job, in the absence of material to the contrary,
should be accepted. Referring to these decisions, this Court in the case of Harbans
Lal & Ors. v. State of Himachal Pradesh
& Ors. (1989 4 SCC 459) summed up the position by stating that a mere
nomenclature designating a person as a Carpenter or a Craftsman was not enough
to come to the conclusion that he was doing the same work as another Carpenter
in regular service. In that case, Carpenters employed by the Himachal Pradesh
Handicraft Corporation on daily wages sought parity of wages with Carpenters in
regular service. This Court negatived this contention, holding that a
comparison cannot be made with counterparts in other establishments with
different management or ever in the establishments in different locations
though owned by the same management.
The
quality of work which is produced may be different and even the nature of work
assigned may be different. It is not just a comparison of physical activity.
The application of the, principle of 'equal pay for equal work' requires
consideration of various dimensions of a given job. The accuracy required and
the dexterity that the job may entail may differ from job to job. It must be
left to be evaluated and determined by an expert body. The latest judgment
pointed out in this connection is the decision in the case of Ghaziabad
Development Authority & Ors. v Vikram Chaudhary & Ors.(1995 5 SCC 120).
It is therefore,
clear that the quality of work performed by different sets of persons holding
different jobs will have to be evaluated. There may be differences in
educational or technical qualifications which may have a bearing on the skills
which the holders bring to their job although the designation of the job may be
the same. There may also be other considerations which have relevance to
efficiency in service which may justify differences in pay- scales on the basis
of criteria such as experience and seniority, or a need to prevent stagnation
in the cadre, so that good performance can be elicited from persons who have
reached the top of the pay-scale. There may be various other similar
considerations which may have a bearing on efficient performance in a job. This
Court has repeatedly observed that evaluation of such jobs for the purposes of
pay-scale must be left to expert bodies and, unless there are any mala fides,
its evaluation should be accepted.
This
Court in the case of Harbans Lal & Ors. v. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. (supra) further held
that daily- rated workmen who were before the Court in that case were entitled
to be paid minimum wages admissible to such workmen as prescribed and not the mimimum
in the pay-scale applicable to similar employees in regular service unless the
employer had decided to make such minimum in the pay- scale applicable to the
daily-rated workmen. The same position is reiterated in the case of Ghaziabad
Development Authority v. Vikram Chaudhary & Ors. (supra).
The
respondents, therefore in the present appeals who are employed on daily wages
cannot be treated as on a par with persons in regular service of the State of Haryana holding similar posts. Daily-rated
workers are not required to possess the qualifications prescribed for regular
workers, nor do they have to fulfil the requirement relating to age at the time
of recruitment. They are not selected in the manner in which regular employees
are selected. In other words the requirements for selection are not as
rigorous.
There
are also other provisions relating to regular service such as the liability of
a member of the service to be transferred, and his being subject to the
disciplinary jurisdiction of the authorities as prescribed, which the
daily-rated workmen are not subjected to. They cannot, therefore, be equated
with regular workmen for the purposes for their wages. Nor can they claim the
minimum of the regular pay-scale of the regularly employed.
The
High Court was, therefore, not right in directing that the respondents should
be paid the same salary and allowances as are being paid to regular employees
holding similar posts with effect from the dates when the respondents were
employed. If a minimum wage is prescribed for such workers, the respondents
would be entitled to it if it is more than what they are being paid.
The
appellants have fairly stated that the Govt. Of Haryana has, from time to time.
issued notifications for regularisation of daily-rated workmen such as the
respondents on the basis of a policy decision taken by it to regularise the
services of such employees as may be specified. Thus, under a Notification of
11th of May, 1994 daily wage earners who had completed five years of service as
on 31.3.1993 and who were covered by that notification were entitled to regularisation
of their service. The latest notification in this regard is dated 18th of
March, '1996 issued by the General Adminstration, Govt. of Haryana. This deals
with regularisation of Work-Charged/Casual/Daily-rated employees with the State
of Haryana. It sets out that it has been decided to regularise the service of
all those Work- Charged/Casual/Daily-rated employees who have completed three
years' service on 31st of January, 1996 and fulfil other conditions laid down
in the Haryana Govt. letter of even number dated 7th of March 1996. Such of the
respondents before us who fulfil the prescribed requirements will be,
naturally, entitled to the benefit of regularisation. In fact, it has been
pointed out to us by the appellants that out of 6,715 daily-rated workers,
3,280 are already regularised as of, 31st January, 1996. This figure of 3,280
includes 2,082 respondents before us. The balance employees could not be regularised
as they have not yet completed three year' of service. Such regularisation is a
matter of policy to be decided upon by the State Government.
In the
premises, the appeals are allowed and judgments and orders of the High Court
are set aside. There will, however, be no order as the costs.
Back
Pages: 1 2
