http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 11  

PETITIONER: BHAGWAN DASS AND OTHERS

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT31/07/1987

BENCH: THAKKAR, M.P. (J) BENCH: THAKKAR, M.P. (J) SINGH, K.N. (J)

CITATION:  1987 AIR 2049            1987 SCR  (3) 714  1987 SCC  (4) 634        JT 1987 (3)   206  1987 SCALE  (2)160  CITATOR INFO :  R          1988 SC1504  (10)  RF         1989 SC  19  (27)  F          1989 SC1256  (4)  C          1989 SC1308  (8,10)  F          1990 SC 883  (7)  RF         1991 SC1173  (6)  RF         1992 SC2130  (7)

ACT:      Constitution  of  India--Arts. 14  and  16--Doctrine  of "Equal work equal pay"--When it is established that the work performed  is similar, there can be no  discrimination  with regard  to scale of pay on the ground that the mode  of  re- cruitment  was  different or the nature of  appointment  was temporary.

HEADNOTE:     The  Education Department of the State of Haryana  which was  administering  Adult Education  Centres  for  providing functional literacy to illiterates in the age-group of 15-35 years and Non-Formal Education Centres to impart learning by Special Contact Courses to student drop-outs from schools in the  age-group of 6-15 years, appointed the  petitioners  as supervisors  from  time to time since the years  1978  on  a fixed  salary and continued to treat them as temporary  gov- ernment servants by giving them a deliberate break in  serv- ice of one day after the lapse of every six-months. Contend- ing  that this was violative of Arts. 14 and 16  since  they were discharging similar duties as other Supervisors such as respondents  2-6  in the Education Department who  had  been absorbed  as  regular government servants,  the  petitioners prayed for issue of a Writ directing the State Government to give  them the same scale of pay and benefits of  continuous service,  etc. by declaring them to be permanent  government servants.     The State Government contended that the petitioners were not full time employees, that their mode of recruitment  was different  from the mode of recruitment of regular  Supervi- sors,  that the nature of functions discharged by  them  was different  from those of the latter and that they  had  been appointed on six-monthly basis as the posts were  sanctioned

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 11  

from  year  to year in view of the temporary nature  of  the schemes.     The  documentary evidence placed on  record  established that the petitioners were functioning as full-time  Supervi- sors and had been 715 given the status equivalent to masters of formal schools and their functions were also like the Block Education  Officers of formal schools. Allowing the petition partly,     HELD:  The  petitioners are entitled to be paid  on  the same basis of same pay scale as per which respondents 2 to 6 who are discharging similar duties as Supervisors just  like the petitioners, are being paid. (i)  The Respondent-State has failed to establish  its  plea that the nature of the duties are different. In the  regular cadre,  the essential qualification for appointment is  B.A. B.ED. Petitioners also possess the same qualification  viz., B.A., B.ED. In fact many of them even possess higher degrees such  as M.A., M.ED. In what manner and in what respect  are the duties and functions discharged by those who are in  the regular  cadre different? The petitioners having  discharged the initial burden of showing similarity in this regard, the burden is shifted on the Respondent-State to establish  that these  are  dissimilar in essence and in substance.  We  are unable  to uphold the bare assertion made in this behalf  by the State of Haryana in its Counter-affidavit. [723F-G] (ii)  So  long as the petitioners are doing  work  which  is similar  to the work performed by respondents 2 to  6,  from the stand point of ’Equal work for equal pay’ doctrine,  the petitioners cannot be discriminated against in regard to pay scales. Whether equal work is put in by a candidate, select- ed  by  a process whereat candidates from all parts  of  the country could have competed or whether they are elected by a process  where candidates from only a cluster of a few  vil- lages  could  have  competed is  altogether  irrelevant  and immaterial,   for  the  purpose  of  the  applicability   of ’Equal work for equal pay’ doctrine. A typist doing  similar work  as  another typist cannot be denied equal pay  on  the ground that the process of selection was different  inasmuch as  ultimately  the  work done is similar and  there  is  no rational  ground to refuse equal pay for equal work.  It  is quite  possible  that if he had to compete  with  candidates from  all over the country, he might or might not have  been selected. It would be easier for him to be selected when the selection  is limited to a cluster of a few  villages.  That however  is  altogether a different matter. It  is  possible that  he  might not have been selected at all if he  had  to compete against 716 candidates from all over the country. But once he is select- ed,  whether he is selected by one process or the other,  he cannot be denied equal pay for equal work without  violating the said doctrine. [723B-E] (iii) Whether appointments are for temporary periods and the Schemes  are  temporary in nature is irrelevant once  it  is shown that the nature of the duties and functions discharged and the work done is similar and the doctrine of ’Equal  pay for equal work’ is attracted. [724B-C] (iv) The petitioners have been appointed in the context of a Scheme  which is by the very nature of things transient  and temporary. No doubt it has been extended from year to  year. But  by  the very nature and scope of the scheme,  once  the objective  of Adult Education is accomplished in  the  sense that the illiterate adults of the cluster of villages become

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 11  

literate pursuant to the education imported at the  centres, the  need for adult education would  diminish  progressively and  ultimately  cease.  Having regard to  these  facts  and circumstances we do not think that the Respondent-State  can be accused of making appointments on a temporary six-months’ basis  with any ulterior or oblique motive. In our  opinion, therefore,  the prayer of the petitioners to absorb them  as regular  employees  on a permanent basis from  the  date  of their initial appointment has no justification. That however does not mean that the petitioners should be deprived of the legitimate  benefits  of being fixed in a  pay-scale  corre- sponding  to  the one applicable to respondents 2  to  6  by treating them as employees who have continued from the  date of initial appointment by disregarding the breaks which have been given on account of the peculiar nature of the  Scheme. While,  therefore, the petitioners cannot claim as a  matter of  right to be absorbed as permanent and regular  employees from the inception, they would be justified in claiming  pay on the basis of the length of service computed from the date of  their appointment depending on the length of service  by disregarding the breaks which have been given for a  limited purpose. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the present case, ends of justice would be met if the  petition- ers are paid the difference in salaries with effect from the date of the institution of the Writ Petition viz.  September 18, 1985. But it will be convenient to direct the  implemen- tation with effect from September 1, 1985.725B-G; 726A-B] 717

JUDGMENT: ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition No. 12311 of 1985. (Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India). Gobind Mukhoty and S.K. Bhattacharya for the Petitioners.     M.S. Gujral, Madhu Sudan Rao, I.S. Goel, C.V. Subba Rao, and Ms. Kitty Kumarmanglam for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by     THAKKAR,  J. The alleged violation of "Equal work  equal pay" doctrine is the principal grievance of the petitioners.     The petitioners 102(1) in number holding the degrees  of B.A., B.Ed. and M.A., B.Ed. were appointed as Supervisors by a competent selection committee constituted by the Education Department  of  Haryana from time to time since  October  2, 1978.     They have instituted the present petition under Art.  32 of the Constitution of India seeking appropriate reliefs  in the context of two grievances, one that the petitioners  are given a deliberate break of one day after the lapse of every six  months and have thus been treated as temporary  Govern- ment  servants notwithstanding the fact that they have  been continuously working eversince the dates of their respective appointment  subject  to the aforesaid break of one  day  at intervals of six months instead of absorbing them as regular employees  in regular pay scales. And secondly,  though  the petitioners  performed  their duties as Supervisors  in  the Education  Department and do the same work as is being  done by their counterparts, respondents 2 to 6 who are  discharg- ing  similar duties as Supervisors in the Education  Depart- ment  who are absorbed as regular government  servants  they are  paid less. The relief claimed by the petitioners is  in the following terms:--                  (1) To declare by appropriate writ that the               petitioners  continue to be in the service  of               the  respondents from the date of  appointment

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 11  

             irrespective of their being a deliberate break               in  service  after  every six  months  by  the               respondents in violation of Articles 14 and 16               of the Constitution of India;               1.  Originally  there  were  91   petitioners.               Subsequently  11  more were added as  per  the               order of the Court dated September 18, 1986 in               Civil  Misc. Petition Nos. 23014 and 25722  of               1986.               718                  (2)  To  declare  by  appropriate  writ  or               direction that the petitioners are in continu-               ous  service  since their respective  date  of               appointments  since the National Adult  Educa-               tion  Programme  was  introduced  and  further               issue a writ in the nature of mandamus to  the               respondent  that the petitioners are  entitled               to the benefit of notification dated 15-9-1982               issued  by  respondent State  of  Haryana  and               accordingly the petitioners be put on  similar               pay  scales and service conditions as that  of               Masters  (B.  A.,  B. Ed. ) in  the  State  of               Haryana, and,               (3) To issue a writ in the nature of  mandamus               or any appropriate writ, order or direction to               the  respondent nos. 2 and 4 to put the  peti-               tioners on regular pay scales along with other               consequential benefits of a permanent employee               from the date of initial appointment.     Before dealing with the grievances made by the petition- ers,  it would be appropriate to portray the  factual  back- ground.  The  Education Department of State of  Haryana  has constituted  an  Adult Education Scheme  under  the  overall control  of Joint Director, Adult and  non-formal  Education Department,  respondent no. 3 herein in the context  of  the National Adult Education Scheme sponsored by the  Government of  India  the birth anniversary of Mahatma Gandhi  in  1978 (October  2,  1978). The aim of adult education  under  this scheme is to provide functional literacy to the  illiterates in  the age group of 15--35. The State Government  has  also framed another Scheme for the non-formal education under the overall control of the same official. The objective of  this scheme  is to impart learning by special contact courses  to the  students  in the age group of 6--15, who  are  dropouts from schools. The petitioners are appointed as  Supervisors. There are hundreds of such Adult Education Centres and  Non- formal  Education Centres. One supervisor is provided for  a group  of  30 centres. Thus each of the  petitioners  is  in charge  of 30 centres under one scheme or the other.  He  is paid  remuneration at the rate of Rs.500 p.m. as fixed  sal- ary. Each one of them was, prior to March, 1984 also paid  a sum  of Rs.60 as fixed travelling allowance which  allowance has  been increased to Rs. 150 per month from March 7,  1984 onwards.     The  Adult  Education Centres are run  under  the  Rural Functional Literacy Programme/Project (RFLP) of the  Central Government.  The  project  is however  administered  by  the respondent, the State of Haryana. According to the  respond- ent  the expenditure in respect of remuneration  payable  to the petitioners under RFLP is 719 borne by the Central Government. With regard to the  centres functioning     under    the    State    Adult     Education Programme/Project (SAEP) to those of the petitioners who are employed under the Scheme are paid remuneration on the  same

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 11  

pattern by the State Government as and by way of honorarium.     The  functions and duties discharged by the  petitioners in  their capacity as Supervisors under the Adult  Education Scheme as per the communication dated April 8, 1985  (Annex- ure  R-2)  addressed  by respondent no. 3  to  the  District Officers and Project Officers, are as under:-               "The  supervisors of the adult  education  has               been given the status equivalent to masters of               formal  schools and their functions  are  also               like  the  Block  Education  Officers  of  the               formal  schools.  Thus the  functions  of  the               supervisors  working  under  Adult   Education               Scheme are inspection and to impart knowledge.               The  general  duties of the  supervisors  will               be:-               to make educational survey of his own  village               and nearby villages under the Rural Functional               Literacy  Programme for starting adult  educa-               tion  and  non-formal  education  centres,  to               locate and recommend for appointment  suitable               instructors for these centres from these  very               villages, to give active co-operation in their               training,  to give guidance in  their  reading               and writing material, to give proper direction               to  instructors  in  his  cluster  the  latest               techniques  of adult education, to give  guid-               ance  continuously  in  latest  technique   of               teaching  methods, inspection of  centres  and               making arrangements for their reading, writing               material,  to  give  model  lessons,  to  hold               discussions  in  the Mohallas/ houses  of  the               community cultivating friendship and  personal               relationship   with  the   community,   create               awareness and awakening in them in the  matter               of literacy, functionality and awareness."     The  controversy  as  to whether  the  Supervisors  were full-time  Supervisors  like Respondents 2 to 6  or  whether they were part-time Supervisors as has been contended by the State  of  Haryana in its affidavit in reply has to  be  re- solved in favour of the petitioners inasmuch as the documen- tary  evidence placed on record establishes that  the  peti- tioners  were full-time (and not part-time) Supervisors.  At An- 720 nexure  ’C’ has been produced a document  entitled  ’Revised financial  pattern of the Project with 100 Educational  cen- tres   .......   ". The cadre of Supervisors  has  been  de- scribed as full-time cadre in this document, as evidenced by the following extract:-- "C. Supervision        (a) Full time Supervisors-one supervisor for a  clus- ter of 30 centres (3 supervisors for 100 centres each in the rank  of  Assistant  Inspector of Schools  with  an  average salary of Rs. 500 per month)                                                Rs.18,000.00         (b) TA cost on supervision (Rs. 150   per month per supervisor)                                                Rs. 5,400.00                                        Total   Rs.23,400.00"                                        (Emphasis     added). What is more, the matter has been placed beyond the pale  of controversy by a Circular issued by the State Government  to all Adult Education Officers as per Annexure ’D’ dated April 9, 1985. The relevant extract from the Circular deserves  to be quoted:

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 11  

             "1. Headquarter of the supervisor:                    (a)  The headquarter of  each  supervisor               shall  be  established in the  middle  of  the               village.                    (b)  Each supervisor will be  present  at               his  Headquarter on a fix day once in  a  week               between 9.30 A.M. to 4.00 P.M. The information               of  the fix day will be given to all  the  in-               structors and adult education officers.                    (c)  The monthly tour programme  of  each               Supervisor  will  be  got  sanctioned  by  the               Assistant Project Education Officers and  made               his  tour  according to this plan  as  far  as               possible.                    (d) The Supervisor will stay whole day in               the  village and will inspect informal  educa-               tion  centres in the day and  adult  education               centre in the night.               (e)  He  will call the  meeting  of  respected               persons of the               721               village  on  the date of meeting  and  discuss               about the progress of the centre. This meeting               can be called before or after the time of  the               centre.                     (f)  If any supervisor leaves the  head-               quarter without permission or does not perform               his  duties properly the necessary action  may               be taken against him."     It  is therefore futile to contend that the  petitioners in  their  capacity  as Supervisors were  required  only  to perform  part-time work. As per clause (d) of the  aforesaid extract, the supervisors were required to stay for the whole day  in the village and were required to visit the  Informal Education  Centre  and  the Adult Education  Centre  in  the night.  They were also required to go on tour and to  remain at  the headquarter once a week from 9.30 A.M. to 4.00  P.M. The conclusion is therefore inevitable that the  petitioners were  not part-time functionaries but were whole-time  func- tionaries.     The  matter may now be examined in this background.  The respondent-State  has resisted the claim of  the  petitioner for  granting  them pay in accordance  with  the  pay-scales applicable to Respondents 2 to 6, who are Supervisors in the regular cadre discharging similar functions, on four grounds viz:--                      (i) that the petitioners are not  full-               time employees;                     (ii)  the  mode of  recruitment  of  the               petitioners  is  different from  the  mode  of               recruitment of respondents 2 to 6.                     (iii)  the nature of the functions  dis-               charged by the petitioners are not similar  to               the  functions discharged by respondents 2  to               6; and                     (iv) appointments are made on six-month-               ly  basis  and  there is a  break  in  service               having  regard to the fact that the posts  are               sanctioned  on year to year basis in  view  of               the temporary nature of the Scheme.     With regard to the first ground for not granting  salary on  the same basis as of respondents 2 to 6, viz. that  they are  part-time  employees  whereas respondents 2  to  6  are full-time  employees, having examined the aforesaid  records placed before the Court, we are of the opinion that there is

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 11  

no substance in this contention. 722     With regard to the next contention viz. that the mode of recruitment of the petitioners is different from the mode of recruitment  of  respondents  2 to 6, we are  afraid  it  is altogether without substance. The contention has been raised in the following terms (paragraph 4(d) of the  Counter-affi- davit  dated  6-1-1986 filed on behalf of Respondents  1  to 13):--               It is absolutely incorrect that the  Petition-               ers  are  similarly placed  as  the  employees               under the Social Education Scheme, as alleged.               The  latter are whole-time employees  selected               by  the subordinate services  Selection  Board               after  competing with candidates from any  pan               of  the country. In the case  of  Petitioners,               normally  the selection at best is limited  to               the  candidates  from  the Cluster  of  a  few               villages  only.  The contention  made  by  the               Petitioners has no justifiable basis."                                                    (Emphasis               added). We need not enter into the merits of the respective modes of selection.  Assuming that the selection of  the  petitioners has  been limited to the cluster of a few villages,  whereas Respondents  2  to 6 were selected by another  mode  wherein they had faced competition from candidates from all over the country., we need not examine the merits of these modes  for the very good reason that once the nature and functions  and the  work are not shown to be dissimilar the fact  that  the recruitment was made in one way or the other would hardly be relevant  from  the point of view of "Equal  pay  for  equal work"  doctrine.  It was open to the State to  resort  to  a selection  process  whereat  candidates from  all  over  the country  might have competed if they so desired. If  however they deliberately chose to limit the selection of the candi- dates  from a cluster of a few villages it will not  absolve the State from treating such candidates in a  discriminatory manner  to the disadvantage of the selectees once  they  are appointed,  provided  the  work done by  the  candidates  so selected  is  similar in nature. It was  perhaps  considered advantageous  to make recruitment from the cluster of a  few villages  for  the purposes of the  Adult  Education  Scheme because the Supervisors appointed from that area would  know the  people of that area more intimately and would be  in  a better  position to persuade them to take advantage  of  the Adult  Education  Scheme in order to make it a  success.  So also it was perhaps considered desirable to make recourse to this  mode of recruitment of candidates  because  candidates from  other parts of the country would have found it  incon- venient  and  onerous to seek employment in  such  a  Scheme where they would have to 723 work  amongst  total  strangers and it would  have  made  it difficult for them to discharge their functions of  persuad- ing the villagers to avail of the Adult Education Scheme  on account  of  that factor. So also they might not  have  been tempted to compete for these posts in view of the fact  that the  Scheme itself was for an uncertain duration  and  could have  been discontinued at any time. Be that as it  may,  so long  as the petitioners are doing work which is similar  to the  work  performed by respondents 2 to 6  from  the  stand point of ’Equal work for equal pay’ doctrine, the  petition- ers cannot be discriminated against in regard to pay scales. Whether  equal work is put in by a candidate, selected by  a

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 11  

process  whereat  candidates from all parts of  the  country could have competed or whether they are selected by a  proc- ess  where candidates from only a cluster of a few  villages could have competed is altogether irrelevant and immaterial, for  the  purposes of the applicability of ’Equal  work  for equal pay’ doctrine.. A typist doing similar work as another typist  cannot  be denied equal pay on the ground  that  the process  of selection was different in asmuch as  ultimately the work done is similar and there is no rational ground  to refuse  equal pay for equal work. It is quite possible  that if  he  had  to compete with candidates from  all  over  the country, he might or might not have been selected. It  would be  easier  for  him to be selected when  the  selection  is limited  to  a cluster of a few villages.  That  however  is altogether a different matter. It is possible that he  might not  have been selected at all if he had to compete  against candidates from all over the country. But once he is select- ed,  whether he is selected by one process or the other,  he cannot be denied equal pay for equal work without  violating the said doctrine. This plea raised by the  Respondent-State must also fail.     Turning  now  to the contention that the nature  of  the duties  are different,, the Respondent-State has  failed  to establish  its  plea. In the regular  cadre,  the  essential qualification  for  appointment is B.A.,  B.Ed.  Petitioners also  possess  the same qualifications viz. B.A.,  B.Ed.  In fact  many  of  them even possess  higher  degrees  such  as M.A.M.Ed. In what manner and in what respect are the  duties and  functions  discharged by those who are in  the  regular cadre  different?  The  petitioners  having  discharged  the initial burden showing similarity in this regard, the burden is  shifted on the Respondent-State to establish that  these are dissimilar in essence and in substance. We are unable to uphold  the bare assertion made in this behalf by the  State of  Haryana (in paragraph 21 of the Counter-affidavit  dated November 23, 1985). In fact the communication dated April 8, 1985  (Annexure  R-2) addressed by the respondent  State  of Haryana to the District Officers which 724 has been quoted in the earlier part of the judgment supports the  contentions  of  the petitioners and  belies  the  plea raised by the Respondent-State.     Lastly  we  have to deal with the  contention  that  the Scheme is a temporary Scheme and the posts are sanctioned on an year to year basis having regard to the temporary  nature of  the Scheme. We are unable to comprehend how this  factor can  be  invoked for violating. ’Equal pay for  equal  work’ doctrine. Whether appointments are for temporary periods and the Schemes are temporary in nature is irrelevant once it is shown that the nature of the duties and functions discharged and the work done is similar and the doctrine of ’Equal  pay for  equal work’ is attracted. As regards the effect of  the breaks  given at the end of every six months, we  will  deal with  this  aspect  shortly hereafter. That  however  is  no ground  for refusing aspect the ’Equal pay for  equal  work’ doctrine.  Be  it realized that we are  concerned  with  the ’Equal  work Equal pay’ doctrine only within the  parameters of the four grounds and the fact situation discussed  herei- nabove.  We  are  not called upon, and we have  no  need  or occasion  to consider the applicability or otherwise of  the said doctrine outside these parameters. For instance we  are not  required to express any opinion in the context  of  em- ployment of similar nature under different employers, or  in different  cadres  under the same  or  different  employers. Nor-are  we  concerned with questions required to  be  dealt

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 11  

with  by authorities like the Pay Commissions such as  equa- tion  of  cadres  or  determination  of  parity-differential between different cadres or making assessment of work  loads or qualitative differential based on relevant considerations and  such  other matters. We are concerned  in  the  present matter  with employees of the same employer doing same  work of  same  nature discharged in the same department  but  ap- pointed  on a temporary basis instead of in a regular  cadre on a regular basis. We have therefore decided the  questions raised  before  us in the backdrop of facts of  the  present case.  On  the other dimensions of the  doctrine  we  remain silent as there is no need or occasion to speak.     In the result we are of the opinion that the petitioners are entitled to be paid on the same basis of same pay  scale as per which respondents 2 to 6 who are discharging  similar duties  as Supervisors just like the petitioners, are  being paid.     We are now faced with the problem arising in the context of  the fact that appointments of the petitioners were  ini- tially made for six months and after giving a break of a day or two they were reappointed 725 to  the  same posts by fresh  order.  The  counter-affidavit filed on 23rd November, 1985 by the State of Haryana and the documents placed on record go to show that the  petitioners’ contention  that  this is done deliberately with a  view  to deny to them the benefits enjoyed by the employees similarly situated  and  discharging similar duties and  functions  as Supervisors  in the regular cadres.We find it  difficult  to accept the contention of the petitioners that this is  being done  deliberately  and with mala fides  attributed  to  the Respondent-State. The petitioners have been appointed in the context  of a Scheme which is by the very nature  of  things transient  and  temporary.  Annexure R-1  to  the  aforesaid counter-affidavit  shows  that the Scheme  was  expected  to function for ten months. No doubt it has been extended  from year  to  year.  But by the very nature  and  scope  of  the Scheme,  once  the objective of Adult  Education  is  accom- plished  in  the  sense that the illiterate  adults  of  the cluster  of villages become literate pursuant to the  educa- tion  imparted at the centres, the need for adult  education would  diminish progressively and ultimately cease. As  dis- closed  in  paragraphs 16 and 17 of the  aforesaid  counter- affidavit the targets were expected to be achieved latest by 1990.  It was in this background that the posts  were  sanc- tioned  on year to year basis (paragraph 11 of  the  counter affidavit).  Having regard to these facts and  circumstances we do not think that the Respondent-State can be accused  of making appointments on a temporary six months basis with any ulterior  or oblique motive. In our opinion, therefore,  the prayer of the petitioners to absorb them as regular  employ- ees  on  a permanent basis from the date  of  theft  initial appointment has no justification. That however does not mean that  the petitioners should be deprived of  the  legitimate benefits of being fixed in a pay-scale corresponding to  the one  applicable  to respondents 2 to 6 by treating  them  as employees  who have continued from the date of  initial  ap- pointment  by disregarding the breaks which have been  given on  account  of the peculiar nature of  the  Scheme.  While, therefore, the petitioners cannot claim as a matter of right to  be absorbed as permanent and regular employees from  the inception,  they would be justified in claiming pay  on  the basis  of  the length of service computed from the  date  of their  appointment  depending on the length  of  service  by disregarding the breaks which have been given for a  limited

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 11  

purpose.  If  this is not done the anomaly such as  the  one highlighted by the petitioners in their rejoinder  affidavit dated  December 13, 1985 will arise. As stated by the  peti- tioners in paragraph 4(c) of the aforesaid rejoinder affida- vit,  while a Peon in the regular service would  be  drawing Rs.650 the petitioners would be getting only Rs.500 as fixed salary  notwithstanding  the nature and  importance  of  the functions discharged by them and the role played by 726 them  in the important field of advancement of  literacy  in the  State.  And finally we must deal with the  question  of date  with effect from which the petitioners should be  paid the  difference in salary. In our opinion having  regard  to the  facts  and circumstances of the present  case  ends  of justice would be met if the petitioners are paid the differ- ence  in salaries with effect from the date of the  institu- tion  of the Writ Petition viz. September 18, 1985.  But  it will be convenient to direct the implementation with  effect from September 1, 1985. We accordingly allow the Writ  Peti- tion partly and direct as under:-- I     The Petitioners shall be fixed in the same pay-scale  as that of Respondents 2 to 6. II     The pay of each of the petitioners shall be fixed having regard to the length of service with effect from the date of his  initial  appointment by ignoring the break  in  service arising in the context of the fact that the initial appoint- ment  orders were for 6 months and fresh appointment  orders were issued after giving a break of a day or two. III     The fixation shall be made as per the general principles adopted  whenever  pay revisions are made.  In  case  upward revision has been effected in respect of the ’supervisors in the  regular, cadre such revision should be taken  into  ac- count in refixing the pay of the petitioners. IV     The  amount  representing the difference in pay  of  the petitioners computed as per the present order shall be  paid to  each petitioner preferably latest by Mahatma  Gandhiji’s birthday  which  falls  on 2nd October, 1987  or  latest  by November 1, 1987. The petitioners will be entitled to incre- ments in the pay-scale in accordance with law  notwithstand- ing the break in service that might have been given. V     We  hope  and trust that the State of Haryana  will  not show displeasure at the petitioners who have approached this Court in order to 727 vindicate their right to claim equal pay and that service of no petitioner would be terminated except on reaching the age of  superannuation  or by way  of  appropriate  disciplinary action,  or  on abandonment of the Scheme. For the  sake  of abundent caution we direct accordingly. VI     Fresh  appointment orders will have to be  issued  reap- pointing  the petitioners who have continued in  service  on the  expiry  of the six months period from time to  time  in order to give effect to the direction contained in clause  V hereinabove. VII     In  case  the  amounts of difference in  pay  cannot  be computed within the time-limit granted by this order, provi- sional  and  approximate  calculations should  be  made  and payment  should be made on such basis subject to  final  ad-

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

justment within the time granted.     The  petitioners  shall  be paid the cost  of  the  Writ Petition quantified at Rs.5 ,000. Ordered accordingly. H.L.C.                                              Petition allowed. 728