http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 12  

PETITIONER: THE  DHARWAD  DISTT. P.W.D. LITERATE DAILY  WAGES  EMPLOYEES

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS. ETC.

DATE OF JUDGMENT23/02/1990

BENCH: MISRA RANGNATH BENCH: MISRA RANGNATH PUNCHHI, M.M. AGRAWAL, S.C. (J)

CITATION:  1990 AIR  883            1990 SCR  (1) 544  1990 SCC  (2) 396        JT 1990 (1)   343  1990 SCALE  (1)288  CITATOR INFO :  R          1992 SC 713  (1)  RF         1992 SC2130  (10)

ACT:     Karnataka  State--Daily rated and monthly rated  employ- ees-Treatment as regular government servants--Directions  by Court.

HEADNOTE:     These are Writ Petitions under Article 32 of the Consti- tution  of  India and a Special Leave Petition  against  the Judgment  of  the Karnataka High Court filed  by  two  trade unions and a Society formed by law students of the Universi- ty  College  and  two individuals asking  for  quashing  the Karnataka  Government’s Notification dated 12th March,  1982 and  for directions to confirm the daily rated  and  monthly rated  employees  as  regular government  servants  and  for payment of normal salary and service benefits as  applicable to the appropriate categories of the government servants.     Nearly  50,000  such persons are employed  in  different Government establishments though many of them have put in 15 to 20 years of continuous service. They have not been  regu- larised  in their service and are not being paid  equal  pay for equal work as has been mandated by this Court by way  of implementation of the Directive Principles of State Policy.     Pursuant  to the directions of this Court, the State  of Karnataka  filed a draft Scheme. The Court considering  both the  aspects  of ’equal pay for equal work’  and  continuing casual employment for too long re-affirmed the view that the principle  of ’equal pay for equal work’ is not an  abstract doctrine instead it is vital and vigorous doctrine  accepted throughout  the  world. While accepting the  petitions,  the Court,     HELD:  That  ’equal pay for equal  work’  and  providing security  for  service  by  regularising  casual  employment within a reasonable period have been unanimously accepted by this Court as a constitutional goal of our socialist polity. While giving directions to the State for giving final  shape to the Scheme, the Court further held that under the 545

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 12  

scheme of the Constitution the purse remains in the hands of the  Executive.  The Legislature of the State  controls  the consolidated  Fund  out of which the expenditure to  be  in- curred, in giving effect to the scheme will have to be  met. [553F; 559H; 560A]     The  flow  into the Consolidated Fund depends  upon  the policy of taxation depending perhaps on the capacity of  the payer. Therefore unduly burdening the State for implementing the  constitutional obligation would create  problems  which the  State may not be able to stand. Directions have  there- fore  been made with judicious restraint with the  hope  and trust that both parties would appreciate and understand  the situation.  The  instrumentality of the State  must  realise that it is charged with a big trust. [560B-C]     The casual/daily rated employees appointed on or  before 1.7.1984  shall  be treated as monthly  rated  establishment employees at the fixed pay of Rs.780 p.m. without any allow- ances with effect from 1.1. 1990. [558H]     The  scheme  which has been finalised is not  the  ideal one.  It  is the obligation of the  Court  to  individualise justice to suit a given situation in a set of facts that are placed before it. [559H]     Randhir  Singh  v. Union of India & Ors., [1982]  1  SCC 618; Dhirendra Chamoli & Anr. v. State of U.P., [1986] 1 SCC 637; Surinder Singh & Ant. v. Engineer-in-Chief, C.P.W.D.  & Ors., [1986] 1 SCC 639; Kishori Mohanlal Bakshi v. Union  of India,  AIR  1962 SC 1139; D.S. Nakara v.  Union  of  India, [1983]  2 SCR 165; R.C. Gupta & Ors. v. Lt. Governor,  Delhi Admn. & Ors., [1987] 4 SCC 505; Bhagwan Dass & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Ors., [1987] 1 SCC 634; Jaipal & Ors. v.  State of  Haryana  & Ors., [1988] 3 SCC 354;  Daily  Rated  Casual Labour employed under P & T Department Contingent Paid Staff Welfare Association v. Union of India & Ors., [1987]  Suppl. SCC  658;  State of U. P. & Ors. v. J.P. Chaurasia  &  Ors., [1989]  1 SCC 121; Kesavananda Bharati v. State  of  Kerala, [1973] 4 SCC 225 and Bhagwan Sahai Carpenter & Ors. v. Union of India & Anr., [1989] 1 JT. 545, referred to.

JUDGMENT:     ORIGINAL  JURISDICTION:  Writ Petition Nos.  8307-11  of 1983 etc. (Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India) WITH Special Leave Petition No. 6823 of 1988. 546     From  the  Judgment  and Order dated  22.1.1988  of  the Karnataka High Court in Application No. 3392 of 1987     N.S.  Hegde,  Additional Solicitor General,  R.K.  Garg, M.C.  Bhandare, Mrs. Indra Jaisingh, P.S. Poti (NP),  Govind Mukhoty, TS. Krishnamurthy Iyer (NP), Miss Rani  Jethmalani, R.M.  Tiwari, L.P. Gour, Mohan Katarki, D.K. Garg, V.  Laxmi Narayan,  P.R.  Ramasheesh, M. Veerappa  (NP),  S.  Ravindra Bhatt and C.S. Vaidyanathan for the appearing parties. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by     RANGANATH MISRA, J. These are five writ petitions  under Article 32 of the Constitution by two trade unions, a socie- ty formed by Law students of the University College and  two individuals  asking  for quashing of the  Karnataka  Govern- ment’s Notification of 12th March, 1982, and for  directions to  confirm the daily rated and monthly rated  employees  as regular government servants and for payment of normal salary at  the rates prescribed for the appropriate  categories  of the  Government servants and other service benefits. It  has

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 12  

been pleaded that about 50,000 such workers are employed  in the  different Government establishments and though many  of them have put in 15 to 20 years of continuous service--which is  proof of the fact that there is permanent need  for  the jobs  they perform--they have not been regularised in  their service  and are not being paid equal pay for equal work  as has been mandated by this Court by way of implementation  of the Directive Principles of State Policy.     A two Judge Bench of this Court dealing with these  writ petitions on 14th July, 1988, directed: "We have heard learned counsel for both the parties, only on one of the questions involved in this case viz. whether  the monthly rated Gangmen who are referred to in Paragraph 1  of the  Government’s order No. PWD 100 PWC 83, Bangalore  dated 12th  January, 1984 and the monthly rated Sowdies  etc.  re- ferred to in the Government’s order No, PWD 120 PWC 84 dated 4th  December,  1984 should be paid the same salary  as  the salary  paid  to Gangmen and Sowdies  respectively  who  are employed regularly by the State Government. As we are of the view  that the principle enunciated by this Court  in  Para- graph 3 of the judgment of this Court in Daily Rated  Casual Labour Employed under 547 P  & T Department through Bhartiya Dak Tar Mazdoor Manch  v. Union  of  India & Ors., [1988] 1 SCC 122 is  applicable  to this case also, we direct the Government of Karnataka to pay salary to such workmen at the rates equivalent to the  mini- mum pay in the pay-scales of the regularly employed  Gangmen or  Sowdies, as the case may be, but without  any  increment with  effect from 1.7. 1988. The question whether  they  are entitled  to any arrears for the period between the date  on which  their services were regularised under the State  Gov- ernment’s Orders and 1.7. 1988 will be considered along with the  other  questions  involved in this case  at  the  final hearing. This case shall stand adjourned by three months. In the  meanwhile  we  permit the State Government to  frame  a more  rational scheme for absorbing as many  casual  workers and monthly rated Gangmen and Sowdies as possible in regular cadres. The case need not be treated as part-heard."     Pursuant  to  the  aforesaid directions,  the  State  of Karnataka  has  filed a draft scheme, copies of  which  have been  served  on the parties, their response  to  the  draft scheme  has been received and the matter has been  heard  at length.     A three-Judge Bench in Randhir Singh v. Union of India & Ors., [1982] 1 SCC 618 observed: "It is true that the principle of ’equal pay for equal work’ is not expressly declared by our Constitution to be a funda- mental  right.  But it certainly is a  constitutional  goal. Article  39(d) of the Constitution proclaims ’equal pay  for equal work for both men and women’ as a Directive  Principle of State Policy. ’Equal pay for equal work for both men  and women’  means equal pay for equal work for everyone  and  as between the sexes. Directive Principles, as has been pointed out  in some of the judgments of this Court have to be  read into  the fundamental rights as a matter of  interpretation. Article 14 of the Constitution enjoins the State not to deny any  person equality before the law or the equal  protection of  the  laws and Article 16 declares that  there  shall  be equality of opportunity for all citizens in matters relating to employment or appointment to any office under the  State. These  equality clauses of the Constitution must mean  some- thing to everyone. To the vast majority of the 548 people  the equality clauses of the Constitution would  mean

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 12  

nothing  if they are unconcerned with the work they  do  and the  pay  they get. To them the equality clauses  will  have some  substance if equal work means equal pay.  Whether  the special procedure prescribed by a statute for trying alleged robber-barons  and  smuggler kings or for dealing  with  tax evaders is discriminatory; whether a particular governmental policy in the matter of grant of licences or permits confers unfettered  discretion on the Executive, whether  the  take- over  of the empires of industrial tycoons is arbitrary  and unconstitutional  and other questions of like nature,  leave the millions to people of this country untouched.  Questions concerning wages and the like, mundane they may be, are  yet matters of vital concern to them and it is there, if at  all that  the  equality  clauses of the  Constitution  have  any significance  to them  .....  Construing Articles 14 and  16 of the Constitution in the light of the Preamble and Article 39(d), we are of the view that the principle ’equal pay  for equal  work’  is deducible from those Articles  and  may  be properly applied to cases of unequal scales of pay based  on no classification or irrational classification though  those drawing the different scales of pay do identical work  under the same employer."     That  was the case of Delhi Police drivers. In the  case of Dhirendra Charnoli & Anr. v. State of U.P., [1986] 1  SCC 637,  the claim for equal pay for equal work arose for  con- sideration  on the complaint of persons who were engaged  by the  Nehru  Yuvak  Kendra as casual workers  on  daily  wage basis. While dealing with the problem a two-Judge Bench took note of the fact that casual employment was being  continued for too long a period and directed: "the  Central Government to accord to these persons who  are employed  by the Nehru Yuvak Kendras and who are  concededly performing  the same duties as Class IV employees, the  same salary  and conditions of service as are being .received  by Class  IV employees, except regularisation which  cannot  be done  since there are no sanctioned posts. But we  hope  and trust  that posts will be sanctioned by the Central  Govern- ment  in  the different Nehru Yuvak Kendras, so  that  these persons can be regularised. It is not at all desirable  that any  management  and  particularly  the  Central  Government should continue to employ persons on 549 casual  basis in organisations which have been in  existence for over 12 years."     Both  these aspects, namely, ’equal pay for equal  work’ and  continuing  casual  employment for too  long  came  for consideration  of another two-Judges Bench of this Court  in Surinder Singh & Anr. v. Engineer-in-Chief, C.P.W.D. & Ors., [1986] 1 SCC 639. Chinnappa Reddy, J. speaking for the Court began his judgment by saying: "In  these two writ petitions, the petitioners who  are  em- ployed  by  the Central Public Works Department on  a  daily wage  basis and who have been so working for several  years, demand that they should be paid the same wages as  permanent employees  employed  to do identical work. They  state  that even  if  it is not possible to employ them on  regular  and permanent  basis  for want of a suitable  number  of  posts, there  is  no reason whatsoever why they  should  be  denied ’equal pay for equal work’. Continuing to deal with the matter the learned Judge pointed out: "One would have thought that the judgment in the Nehru Yuvak Kendras  case  concluded further argument on  the  question. However, Shri V.C. Mahajan, learned counsel for the  Central Government  reiterated the same argument and also  contended

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 12  

that  the doctrine of ’equal pay for equal work’ was a  mere abstract  doctrine  and  that it was not  capable  of  being enforced  in a court of law. He referred us to the  observa- tions  of this Court in Kishori Mohanlal Bakshi v. Union  of India, AIR 1962 SC 1139. We are not a little surprised  that such an argument should be advanced on behalf of the Central Government  36 years after the passing of  the  Constitution and  11  years after the Fortysecond  Amendment  proclaiming India  as a socialist republic. The Central Government  like all organs of the State is committed to the Directive  Prin- ciples of State Policy and Article 39 enshrines the  princi- ple  of equal pay for equal work. In Randhir Singh v.  Union of  India,  supra, this Court has occasion  to  explain  the observations  in Kishori Mohanlal Bakshi v. Union of  India, and  to point out how the principle of equal pay  for  equal work  is not an abstract doctrine and how it is a vital  and vigorous doctrine 550 accepted throughout the world, particularly by all socialist countries.  For the benefit of those who do not seem  to  be aware  of it, we may point out that the decision in  Randhir Singh, case has been followed in any number of cases by this Court and has been affirmed by a Constitution Bench of  this Court  in D.S. Nakara v. Union of India, [1983] 2  SCR  165. The Central Government, the State Governments and  likewise, all public sector undertakings are expected to function like model and enlightened employers and arguments such as  those which  were advanced before us that the principle  of  equal pay  for equal work is an abstract doctrine which cannot  be enforced  in a court of law should ill come from the  mouths of the State and the State Undertakings  .....  "     A little later came the case of R.D. Gupta & Ors. v. Lt. Governor,  Delhi Admn. & Ors., [1987] 4 SCC 505 raising  the problem of inequality of pay in a situation where equal work was  being  rendered. In paragraph 18 of  the  judgment  the ratio of the decision already referred to was reaffirmed. In the case of Bhagwan Dass & Ors. v. State of Haryana &  Ors., [1987] 4 SCC 634, the same principles were reiterated in the case  of Teachers and Supervisors in the education  service. Another Division Bench in Jaipal & Ors. v. State of  Haryana &  Ors., [1988] 3 SCC 354 was dealing with the disparity  in the conditions of service of Instructors under the Adult and Non-formal  Education  Scheme and regular employees  of  the State of Haryana. This court stated: "There  is no doubt that instructors and squad teachers  are employees of the same employer doing work of similar  nature in  the  same department; therefore, the  appointment  on  a temporary  basis  or on regular basis does  not  affect  the doctrine  of  equal pay for equal work. Article  39(d)  con- tained  in Part IV of the Constitution ordains the State  to direct its policy towards securing equal pay for equal  work for both men and women. Though Article 39 is included in the chapter  on Directive Principles of State Policy, but it  is fundamental in nature. The purpose of the Article is to  fix certain social and economic goals for avoiding any discrimi- nation  amongst  the people doing similar  work  in  matters relating  to pay. The doctrine of equal pay for  equal  work has been implemented by this Court in Randhir Singh v. Union of India, Dhirendra Chamoli v. State of U.P. and 551 Surinder Singh v. Engineer-in-Chief, CPWD. In view of  these authorities  it  is  too late in the day  to  disregard  the doctrine  of equal pay for equal work on the ground  of  the employment being temporary and the other being permanent  in nature.  A temporary or casual employee performing the  same

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 12  

duties and functions is entitled to the same pay as paid  to a permanent employee."     In the case of Daily Rated Casual Labour employed  under P & T Department v. Union of India & Ors., [1988] 1 SCC 122, the twin aspects for consideration before us had arisen  for determination. This Court then indicated: "It may be true that the petitioners have not been regularly recruited  but many of them have been  working  continuously for more than a year in the department and some of them have been engaged as casual labourers for nearly ten years.  They are  rendering the same kind of service which is being  ren- dered by the regular employees doing the same type of  work. Clause (2) of Article 38 of the Constitution of India  which contains  one  of the Directive Principles of  State  Policy provides  that  ’the State shall, in particular,  strive  to minimise the inequalities in income and endeavour to  elimi- nate  inequalities in status, facilities and  opportunities, not  only  amongst individuals but also  amongst  groups  of people  residing in different areas or engaged in  different vocations’.  Even though the above directive  principle  may not  be enforceable as such by virtue of Article 37  of  the Constitution  of India, it may be relied upon by  the  peti- tioners  to  show that in the instant case  they  have  been subjected  to hostile discrimination. It is urged  that  the State cannot deny at least the minimum pay in the pay scales of regularly employed workmen even though the government may not  be  compelled  to extend all the  benefits  enjoyed  by regularly recruited employees. We are of the view that  such denial  amounts  to exploitation of labour.  The  government cannot  take advantage of its dominant position, and  compel any  worker to work even as a casual labourer on  starvation wages. It may be that the casual labourer has agreed to work on such low wages. That he has done because he has no  other choice. It is poverty that has driven him to that state. The government should be a model employer. We are 552 of  the view that on the facts and in the  circumstances  of this  case  the classification of employees  into  regularly recruited employees and casual employees for the purpose  of paying less than the minimum pay payable to employees in the corresponding  regular  cadres particularly  in  the  lowest rungs of the department where the pay scales are the  lowest is  not  tenable  .....  India is a socialist  republic.  It implies the existence of certain important obligations which the State has to discharge. The right to work, the right  to free choice of employment, the right to just and  favourable conditions  of work, the right to protection  against  unem- ployment.  the right of everyone who works to just  and  fa- vourable  remuneration ensuring a decent living for  himself and his family, the right of everyone without discrimination of any kind to equal pay for equal work, the right to  rest, leisure, reasonable limitation on working hours and periodic holidays  with pay, the right to form trade unions  and  the right to join trade unions of one’s choice and the right  to security  of  work are some of the rights which have  to  be ensured  by appropriate legislative and executive  measures. It is true that all these rights cannot be extended simulta- neously. But they do indicate the socialist goal. The degree of  achievement in this direction depends upon the  economic resources,  willingness  of the people to produce  and  more than  all the existence of industrial peace  throughout  the country. Of those rights the question of security of work is of utmost importance. If a person does not have the  feeling that he belongs to an organisation engaged in production  he will  not put forward his best effort to produce more.  That

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 12  

sense  of belonging arises only when he feels that  he  will not be turned out of employment the next day at the whim  of the management. It is for this reason it is being repeatedly observed  by those who are in charge of economic affairs  of the countries in different parts of the world that as far as possible security of work should be assured to the employees so  that they may contribute to the maximisation of  produc- tion.  It is again for this reason that managements and  the governmental agencies in particular should not allow workers to remain as casual labourers or temporary employees for  an unreasonably long period of time  ......  ’ ’ Keeping  these principles in view this Court in the case  of H.P. Income 553 Tax Department Contingent Paid Staff Welfare Association  v. Union of India & Ors., [1987] Suppl. SCC 658 indicated  with emphasis: "We  accordingly  allow this writ petition  and  direct  the respondents to pay wages to the workmen who are employed  as the  contingent  paidstaff  of  the  Income  Tax  Department throughout  India, doing the work of Class IV  employees  at the rates equivalent to the minimum pay in the pay scale  of the   regularly  employed  workers  in   the   corresponding cadres  .....  "     Then came the case of State of U.P. & Ors. v. J.P. Chau- rasia  &  Ors., [1989] 1 SCC 121 where a Division  Bench  of this Court reiterated: "Equal  pay for equal work for both men and women  has  been accepted as a constitutional goal capable of being  achieved through constitutional remedies." On this occasion the authority of the larger Bench in  Kesa- vananda  Bharati v. State of Kerala, [1973] 4 SCC 225  where the Court said ’the dominant objective in view was to  amel- iorate  and improve the lot of the common man and  to  bring about  a socio-economic justice’ was called in aid  for  the conclusion of the Court.     Reference  may  also be made to another  Division  Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Bhagwan Sahai  Carpen- ter  & Ors. v. Union of India & Anr., [1989] 1 JT 545  where the  ratio  of  the decisions referred to  above  was  given effect to.     We  have  referred to several  precedents--all  rendered within  the  current decade--to emphasise upon  the  feature that  equal  pay for equal work and providing  security  for service by regularising casual employment within a  reasona- ble period have been unanimously accepted by this Court as a constitutional  goal to our socialistic polity. Article  141 of the Constitution provides how the decisions of this Court are  to be treated and we do not think there is any need  to remind  the  instrumentalities of the State--be  it  of  the Centre or the State, or the public sector--that the  Consti- tution-makers  wanted  them to be bound by what  this  Court said by way of interpreting the law.     The question that arises in these matters is indeed  not one that has been left wholly to the realm of interpretation and to be described 554 as  Judge-made  law. Parliament has stepped in as  early  as 1976 by enacting the Equal Remuneration Act (25 of 1976)  to take over a part of the question which arises here. That Act is  a legislation providing equality to pay for  equal  work between  men  and  women which certainly is a  part  of  the principle which we are considering.     President  Roosevelt, the American Chief  Executive,  in one  of his annual reports about the state of the Nation  to

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 12  

the Congress once pointed out: "The chief law-makers in our country may be, and often  are, the  Judges  because they are the final seat  of  authority. Every time they interpret contract, property vested  rights, due process of law, liberty, they necessarily enact into law part of a system of social philosophy; and as such interpre- tation  is fundamental, they give direction to all law  mak- ing.  The  decisions of the Courts on  economic  and  social questions depend upon their economic and social  philosophy; and  for  the  peaceful progress of our  people  during  the twentieth century, we shall owe most of those Judges to hold to  a twentieth century economic and social  philosophy  and not  to  a  long overgrown philosophy  which  was  itself  a product of primitive economic conditions."     We  would like to point out that the philosophy of  this Court  as evolved in the cases we have referred to above  is not  that of the Court but is ingrained in the  Constitution as  one of the basic aspects and if there was any  doubt  on this  there is no room for that after the Preamble has  been amended  and  the Forty-Second Amendment  has  declared  the Republic to be a socialistic one. The judgments,  therefore, do  nothing more than highlight one aspect of the  constitu- tional philosophy and make an attempt to give the philosophy a reality of flesh and blood.     Jawaharlal  Nehru,  the  first Prime  Minister  of  this Republic  while dreaming of elevating the lot of the  common man of this country once stated: "Our  final aim can only be a classless society  with  equal economic justice and opportunity to all, a society organised on  a  planned basis for the raising of  mankind  to  higher material  and cultural level. Everything that comes  in  the way will have to be removed gently if possible; forcibly if 555 necessary, and there seems to be little doubt that  coercion wilt often be necessary." These  were  his prophetic words about three  decades  back. More than a quarter of century has run out since he left  us but  there has yet been no percolation in adequate  dose  of the benefits the constitutional philosophy stands for to the lower strata of society. Tolstoy wrote: "The abolition of slavery has gone on for a long time.  Rome abolished slavery. America abolished it and we did but  only the words were abolished, not the thing."               Perhaps what Tolstoy wrote about abolition  of slavery in a large sense applies to what we have done to the constitutional etches. It has still remained on paper and is contained in the book. The benefits have not yet reached the common  man.  What Swami Vivekananda wrote  in  a  different context  may  perhaps help a quicker implementation  of  the goal  to  bring about the overdue changes  for  transforming India in a positive way and in fulfilling the dreams of  the Constitution fathers. These were the words of the Swami: "It  is  imperative that all this various  yogas  should  be carried  out in practice. Mere theories about them wilt  not do any good. First we have to hear about them; then we  have to  think  about them. We have to reason the  thoughts  out, impress  them  on our minds and meditate  on  them;  realise them,  until at last they become our whole life.  No  longer will  religion  remain a bundle of ideas or theories  or  an intellectual  assent; it will enter into our very  self.  By means of intellectual assent, we may today subscribe to many foolish  things, and change our minds  altogether  tomorrow. But  true religion never changes. Religion  is  realisation; not talk, nor doctrine, nor theories, however beautiful they may be. It is being and becoming, not hearing or acknowledg-

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 12  

ing.  It is the whole soul’s becoming changed into  what  it believes. That is religion."          The  relevant constitutional philosophy  should  be the substitute for religion and it must be allowed to become a  part  of every man in this country; then only  would  the Constitution  reach every one and he or she would be  nearer the goals set by it. That perhaps can happen in every field. 556     The  precedents  referred  to  above  have,   therefore, obliged  the  State of Karnataka, respondent before  us,  to regularise  the services of the casual employees who are  in these  cases called daily rated and monthly rated  employees and the State of Karnataka is obliged to make them the  same payment as regular employees are getting. Mr. Hegde  appear- ing  for the State has, however, pointed out that  while  on principle  it  is  difficult to play a  different  tune,  in reality  and  as  a matter  of  state-craft,  implementation thereof  forthwith  is an economic  impossibility.  He  has, therefore,  placed the scheme drawn up by the State for  our consideration  and has pleaded for balancing the  philosophy and the economic constraints of the State for the purpose of resolution of the dispute.     We have already pointed out that there are about  50,000 employees covered by the classifications who await regulari- sation.  On 3rd of April, 1986, the question of  regularisa- tion  of services of persons working on daily wages  in  the local  bodies under the administrative control of the  Urban Wing  of the Housing and Urban Development  Department  came for consideration on the basis of the report of the  Commit- tee  set  up on 26.11. 1985. In the meantime,  this  Court’s order  dated 17th of January, 1986 in a group of writ  peti- tions laying down the principle of equal pay for equal  work had been pronounced. Keeping that in view the State  Govern- ment on 3.4.1986 made the following order:          "Having  regard to the recommendations of the  Com- mittee  and after duly taking into account  the  observation made  by  the Supreme Court in the case referred  to  above, Government of Karnataka hereby direct that all the employees working on daily wage basis or NMR basis in the local bodies which come under the administrative control of Urban Wing of Housing  and Urban Development  Department, be  granted  the same pay and allowances as are allowed to regular  employees of the respective cadres with effect from  1.1.1986, subject to the following conditions:          1. No financial assistance shall be available  from Government.            2.  The  additional  resources  on  this  account should be raised by the local bodies concerned; and 557          3.  The local bodies should freeze the  recruitment for  the next 4 to 5 years or alternatively study the  work- load and prune the expenditure accordingly.     On 2nd of July, 1986, a set of rules known as the Karna- taka State Civil Services (Special Recruitment of the Candi- date)  Rules, 1986 came into force. We have been  told  that ambit  of  the  present dispute before us is  in  no  manner affected  by  the said decision of the  Government  nor  the Rules that have been referred to above. We do not propose to examine the correctness of this statement while dealing with the scheme of the State Government.     The scheme furnished by the State contemplates that  all casual/  daily rated employees appointed on or  before  2.7. 1974 shall be treated as monthly rated establishment employ- ees on a fixed pay of Rs.780 per month without any allowance from 1.1. 1990. They would be eligible for an annual  incre-

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 12  

ment  at the rate of Rs. 10 till their services are  regula- rised. On regularisation they shall be adjusted at the basic payscale applicable to the lowest Group D cadre but would be entitled to all other benefits available to regular  employ- ees of their class. From amongst the casual and daily  rated employees  who  have completed ten years of  service  as  on 31.12.1989,  18,600  would be  immediately  regularised   on seniority-cum-suitability   basis  with  effect   from  1.1. 1990.  The State Government shall also regularise the  serv- ices of the remaining casual or daily rated workers who have already completed ten years of service as on 31.12.1989  but could  not  be included in the limit of 18,600 in  a  phased manner on the basis of seniority-cumsuitability on or before 31st of December, 1990. The remaining casual or daily  rated employees  will be absorbed and/or regularised in  a  phased manner on seniority-cum-suitability basis on or before  31st of December, 1997.     This  revised  scheme filed by Mr. Hegde for  the  State has,  however, not been accepted by Mr. Bhandare  and  other counsel  appearing on the side of the petitioners  in  these petitions though on certain aspects there is unanimity.  Mr. Bhandare in his note by way of response to the scheme of Mr. Hegde  has emphasised upon the need of regularising all  the employees  who  have  completed ten years  of  service  with effect  from 1.1. 1990. He has further claimed that all  the casual and daily rated workmen who have completed five years of service as on 31.12. 1989 should be put on monthly  rated pay and the balance of casual or daily rated workmen who are not covered by the above two classes should be continued  in that capacity and put on the monthly 558 rated establishments as and when they complete five years of service  and  be regularised on completion of ten  years  of service from the initial employment as daily rated  workmen. It  has been contended that a lot of these casual and  daily rated  workmen  have been retrenched in  violation  of  this Court’s interim order dated 25.7.1983 and there should be  a direction  for  their reinstatement with the benefit  of  no break  in service. It has been further maintained that  some of  these  employees belong to higher  classifications  like Groups  B  and C and, therefore, they should  be  given  the benefit  of the corresponding scales of pay  on  regularisa- tion.     One  of  the further claims in the written note  of  Mr. Bhandare  is that when the daily rated workmen are  absorbed into  monthly rated employment, they should be  entitled  to the  minimum  basic wage in the corresponding scale  of  the group  of the permanent employees. The response  points  out that the casual and daily rated workmen to be covered by the scheme  should include casual employees and  NMR  employees, progressive farmers, gram sahai and anganwadi workers. There is  claim for weightage for past service, namely, for  every unit  of  five years exceeding ten years of service  on  the date  of regularisation, an additional increment  should  be admissible and added to the basic salary and the  advantages of the scheme extended to all the employees under the  State prior  to formation of the Zila Parishads in  the  Karnataka State and transfer of some of them to the Zila Parishads and Mandal  Panchayats. Finally, it has been contended  that  no one  who is in employment on casual or daily rated basis  on the date of our judgment should be retrenched.     We  can well realise the anxiety of the petitioners  who have waited too long to share the equal benefits mandated by Part IV of the Constitution in respect of their  employment. At the same time, we cannot overlook the contraints  arising

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 11 of 12  

out  of or connected with availability of  State  resources. Keeping both in view and reposing our trust in the  relevant instrumentalities  of the State that may be  connected  with the  implementation  of the scheme to act with  a  sense  of fairness, anxiety to meet the demands of the human  require- ments and also anxious to fulfil the constitutional  obliga- tions of the State, the directions which we give below  will give a final shape to the scheme thus: 1. The casual/daily rated’ employees appointed on or  before 1.7.1984  shall  be treated as monthly  rated  establishment employees  at the fixed pay of Rs.780 per month without  any allowances  with effect from 1.1. 1990. They would be  enti- tled to 559 an annual increment of Rs. 15 till their services are  regu- larised. On regularisation they shall be put in the  minimum of  the time scale of pay applicable to the lowest  Group  D cadre  under  the Government but would be  entitled  to  all other  benefits available to regular government servants  of the corresponding grade.        Those belonging to the B or C Groups upon regularisa- tion  shall similarly be placed at the minimum of  the  time scale  of  pay applicable to their respective  groups  under government  service,  and  shall be entitled  to  all  other benefits  available to regular government servants of  these grades. 2.  From  amongst the casual and daily rated  employees  who have  completed ten years of service by  31.12.1989,  18,600 shall immediately be regularised with effect from 1.1.  1990 on the basis of seniority-cum-suitability.        There shall be no examination but physical  infirmity shall mainly be the test of suitability. 3.  The  remaining monthly rated employees  covered  by  the paragraph 1 who have completed ten years of service as on  3 ist December, 1989, shall be regularised before 31st  Decem- ber,   1990,   in   a  phased  manner  on   the   basis   of seniority-cum-suitability,  suitability being understood  in the same way as above. 4. The balance of casual or daily rated employees who become entitled to absorption on the basis of completing ten  years of service shall be absorbed/regularised in a phased  manner on  the  same principle as above on or before  December  31, 1997. 5. At the point of regularisation, credit shall be given for every  unit of five years of service in excess of ten  years and one additional increment in the time scale of pay  shall be allowed by way of weightage. There  was a direction that the claims on other heads  would be  considered at the time of .final disposal. We have  come to  the  conclusion that apart from these reliefs  no  other would be admissible.     We  are alive to the position that the scheme  which  we have finalised is ’not the ideal one but as we have  already stated,  it is the obligation of the Court to  individualise justice to suit a given situation 560 in  a  set  of facts that are placed before  it.  Under  the scheme of the Constitution the purse remains in the hands of the  Executive.  The Legislature of the State  controls  the Consolidated  Fund  out of which the expenditure to  be  in- curred  in giving effect to the scheme will have to be  met. The flow into the Consolidated Fund depends upon the  policy of taxation depending perhaps on the capacity of the  payer. Therefore,  unduly burdening the State for implementing  the constitutional  obligation forthwith would  create  problems

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 12 of 12  

which  the State may not be able to stand. We  have,  there- fore, made our directions with judicious. restraint with the hope and trust that both parties would appreciate and under- stand  the situation. The instrumentality of the State  must realise that it is charged with a big trust. The money  that flows  into  the Consolidated Fund and constitutes  the  re- sources  of the State comes from the people and the  welfare expenditure  that is meted out goes from the same Fund  back to the people. May be that in every situation the same  tax- payer  is not the beneficiary. That is an incident of  taxa- tion and a necessary concomitant of living within a  welfare society. Since  this  is not an adversarial litigation,  we  make  no order as to costs. R.N.J.                                             Petitions allowed. 561