Sunder Singh vs State of U.P. and Others

Rajesh Tandon, J.—By the present writ petition, the Petitioner has prayed for a writ of mandamus directing the Respondent to consider the regularization of the Petitioner.

Briefly stated, the Petitioner was appointed as a daily wager beldar Class IV employee at the rate of Rs. 68 per day w.e.f. 1976 under the Respondents and has been continuously working as a daily rated employee and his services are without any break since his initial appointment in the Public Works Department Purola, district Uttar Kashi.

Petitioner has referred a judgment of Dharwad District P.W.D. Daily Wages Employee Association and Ors. v. State of Karnataka and others, 1990 UPLBEC 2151 in paragraph 6 of the writ petition. The same is quoted below:

We have heard learned Counsel for both the parties only on one of the question involved in this case viz. whether the monthly rated Gangmen who are referred to in para 1 of the G.O. No. P.W.D.-10-P.W.O. 0-93 Bangalore, dated January 12, 1984 and the monthly rated sewdies referred to in the G.O. No. P.W.D./20-P.W.O.-84 dated, December 14, 1984 should be paid the same salary as the salary paid to Gangmen and sewdies respectively who are employed regularly by the State Government as we are of the view that the principle ennunciated by this Court in paragraph 8 of the judgment in Daily rated casual labour employed in Daily Rated Casual Labour Employed under P and T Department Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, , is applicable to this case also. We direct the Government of Karnataka to pay salary to such workmen at the rate equivalent to the minimum pay in the pay scale of regularly employed Gangmen or sewdies as the case may be but without any increment with effect from July, 1988, will be considered alongwith other questions involved in this case in the final hearing. This case shall stand adjourned by 3 months. In the meanwhile we direct the State Government to furnish a mere rational scheme for absorbing as many casual workers and monthly rated gangmen and sewdies as possible, in regular cadres. The case need no be treated as part heard.

The Petitioner has referred the judgment of R.D. Gupta v. Leutinent Governor Delhi, Administration, 1987 SCC 470 with regard to the proposition of equal pay for equal work.

He has also referred the Uttar Pradesh Regularisation of Daily Wages Appointments on Group ''D'' Posts Rules, where the cut off date has been shown as 29th June, 1991. Rule 4 is quoted below:

Regularisation of daily wages appointments on Group ''D'' Posts.-(1) Any person who-

(a) was directly appointed on daily wage basis on a Group ''D'' post in Government service before June 29, 1991 and is continuing in service as such on the date of commencement of these rules; and

(b) possessed requisite qualification prescribed for regular appointment for that post at the time of such appointment on daily wage basis under the relevant service rules, shall be considered for regular appointment in permanent or temporary vacancy, as may be available in Group ''D'' post, on the date of commencement of these rules on the basis of these rules on the basis of his record and suitability before any regular appointment is made in such vacancy in accordance with then relevant service rules or orders.

In view of the aforesaid rules as well as the judgment of the Division Bench, the Respondents are directed to pass appropriate orders considering the claim of the Petitioner within a period of four months from the date of presentation of the certified copy of the order.

Writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.