@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
V.K. Jhanji, J.@mdashThe only contention urged by learned counsel appearing on behalf of defendant-corporation (appellant herein) is that plaintiff was appointed as part-time Chowkidar and as such, is not entitled to the pay scale of a regular Chowkidar. In this regard, he has cited judgments of the Supreme Court in State of Haryana Vs. Jasmer Singh and others, and Himanshu Kumar Vidyarthi and Others Vs. State of Bihar and Others, . The judgments cited by the Counsel have no application to the facts of Ihe present case. In the instant case, the stand of the plaintiff is that he has been performing the duties of regular Chowkidar for 8 hours per day. Further, his case is that whatever duties are being assigned to a regular Chowkidar, are being performed by him. Trial Court on appreciation of evidence adduced by the parties to the suit held that the plaintiff was performing the duties for 8 hours. In appeal, first appellate Court affirmed the finding of the trial Court in this regard. First appellate Court also took into consideration the reports of the concerned officials which were obtained on the representation of the plaintiff wherein the said officials had reported that plaintiff had been performing his duties for 8 hours every day. As per the duty register, Ex. P-5, plaintiff had been performing duties for 8 hours every day. This being the state of affairs, it is futile to urge the plaintiff who had been working as Chowkidar with effect from 21.9.1975 and performing duties for hours 8 hours, is part-time Chowkidar simply because he has been so described in the appointment letter. In my view, both the Courts below have not committed any illegality in saying that the plaintiff is entitled to the pay scale of a regular Chowkidar as he has been performing duties as such on the doctrine of Equal pay for Equal Work. Consequently, the appeal being without any merit shall stand dismissed with costs. Costs are assessed at Rs.2000/-.
2. Appeal dismissed.
