Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.@mdashHeard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondents.
2. As per the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioners and also the judgments passed earlier in the writ petitions, which are contained at
Annexure-4 series, the petitioners who are claiming to be engaged in the respondent-Drinking Water and Sanitation Department since 1988, have
been getting minimum scale of pay upon direction passed in their own cases earlier. On this occasion, petitioners have, however, again made a
prayer to treat them as regular permanent employees and to pay them salary and allowances as are admissible to the regular employee of the
respondent-State on the principles of equal pay for equal work. According to them, they are performing the same duties from the last 26 years and
are entitled for such relief.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that representations have been made before the respondent-State which is at Annexure-4
dated 7th January, 2013 and Annexure-5 dated 8th July, 2013 for consideration of their aforesaid grievances.
4. The respondents have taken the plea that these petitioners are working on the post of Truck Driver or Pump Khalasi and have been engaged
without any advertisement and without roster clearance as daily wage workers. Such appointments under the scheme of Constitution can be made
only after following the principles laid down under Article 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India. It is further submitted that nature of the posts
comes under work charged establishment and the petitioners are engaged on muster roll and on daily wages basis for which there is no sanctioned
regular post in the Department. It is also submitted that pursuant to the orders passed earlier in many cases, the Department has decided to pay
lowest scale of pay to such post enjoyed by the petitioners. However, the Department is unable to regularize the petitioners on any sanctioned
vacant post. In the aforesaid circumstances, petitioners'' engagement being made on daily wage basis, they cannot claim equal pay for equal work
as permanent regular employee of the respondent-State and respondent-Department.
5. From the submissions of the parties and the pleadings on record, the claim of the petitioners that they are entitled for regularization and pay and
allowances equal to that of the regular permanent employee does not seem to be made out as the petitioners have been engaged on daily
wage/muster roll basis and on work charged establishment. Principles of equal pay for equal work which flow from the Directive Principles of
State policy under Article 39(d) of the Constitution of India have been diluted over a period of time by the judgments rendered by Hon''ble
Supreme Court. The nature of appointment, qualification required for the said post as a permanent employee, and the other conditions which are
required to be fulfilled in permanent employment, are some of the several factors which have to be established to show that the persons claiming
equal pay for equal work are absolutely similarly situated as that of the regular employee. Admittedly, the entry of the petitioners in service, nature
of the duty performed, qualification etc. can not be said to be similar to those who are in regular establishment and have been appointed after due
procedure as provided under Annexures 14 & 16 and after giving opportunity to all eligible persons. Therefore, such a claim cannot be
countenanced on the part of the petitioner on the said principle. The petitioners, however, have got minimum scale of pay pursuant to the judgment
passed in their cases where they had confined their prayer for the relief for minimum pay scale. Therefore, I do not find that the petitioners have
made out a case for directing the respondents to pay same salary and allowances as are admissible to the regular/permanent employee of the State.
6. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.