http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4  

PETITIONER: STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: JASMER SINGH & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       07/11/1996

BENCH: A.M. AHMADI, SUJATA V. MANOHAR

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                             WITH                         14224-14362      CIVIL APPEAL NOS ...........................OF 1996 (Arising out  of SLP(C)  Nos.27151-27154/95,  2715527157/95, 27158-27160/95, 27161/95,  27162/95, 582/96,590-595/96 2898- 2913/96, 3549-3553/96,SLP(C)22115../96  CC 472, SLP(C) 22114 /96 CC420,  SLP(C)  Nos.8284-8287/96,  8055-8084/96,  10341- 10343/96,  15239-15241/96,  15242-15250/96,  13967-14006/96, 4213- 4220/96                       J U D G M E N T      Mrs. Sujata V.Manohar, J.      Delay condoned.      Leave granted.      These appeals  have been filed by the State of  Haryana against the  various judgments  of the  Punjab and   Haryana High Court  granting to  perons employed  by the   State  of Haryana on  daily wages  the same  pay  as  those    holding regular posts in Govt. service. For the sake of  convenience the particulars  of special leave petition  No.27150 of 1995 are set out.      The    respondents    are    employed    as    Mali-cum Chowkidars/Pump Operators  on daily  wages by  the State  of Haryana from  different dates.  The respondents prayed  that on the  basis of’equal  pay for  equal work’ they  should be paid the same salary as is being paid to  regularly employed persons holding  similar posts in the  services of the State of Haryana. This prayer was  granted by the High Court which directed the State of  Haryana to pay to the respondents the same salary  and    allowances  as are beinq paid to regular employees   holding similar posts with effect from the dates the  respondents were employed on the posts held by them.      The principle  of ’equal  pay for  equal work’  is  not always easy   to  apply. There are inherent  difficulties in comparing  and   evaluating  work   done   by      different organisations, or  even  in    the  same  organisation.  The principle was  originally   enunciated  as  a  part  of  the Directive Principles  of   State Policy  in article 39(d) of the Constitution.  In the  case of Randhir Singh v. Union of India & Ors. (1982 1 SCC 618), however, this Court said that this was  a constitutional  goal capable  of being  achieved

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4  

through constitutional  remedies and held that the principle had to  be read into Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. In that  case a  Driver-constable in  the Delhi Police Force under the Delhi Administration claimed equal salary as other Drivers and  this prayer was granted. The same principle was subsequently followed  for the purpose of granting relief in Dhirendra, Chamoli & Anr. v. State of U. P. (1986 1 SCC 637) and Jaipal  & Ors.  v. State  of Haryana  & Ors.(1988  3 SCC 354). In  the case  of Federation  of All  India Customs and Central Excise  Stenographers (Recognised),  & Ors. v. Union of India  & ors.  (1988  3  SCC  91),  however,  this  Court explained the  principle of  ’equal pay  for eaual  work’ by holding that  differentiation in pay-scales among government servants holding  same posts  and performing similar work on the basis  of difference  in the  degree of  responsibility, reliability   and   confidentiality   would   be   a   valid differentiation. In that case different pay-scales fixed for Stenographers (Grade  I) working  in the Central Secretariat and those  attached to  the heads’ of subordinate offices on the basis of a recommendation of the Pay Commission was held as not violating Article 14 and as not being contrary to the principle of equal pay for equal work’. This Court also said that the  judgment of  administrative authorities concerning the responsibilities  which attach  to  the  post,  and  the degree of  reliability expected  of an incumbent, would be a value  judgment  of  the  concerned  authorities  which,  if arrived at  bona fide,  reasonably and  rationally, was  not open to interference by the court.      In the case of State of U.P. & Ors. v. J.P. Chaurasia & Ors. (1989  1 SCC  121) this  Court again  sounded a note of caution. It pointed out that the Principle of ’equal pay for equal work’  has no  mechanical application in every case of similar work.  Article 14  permits reasonable classification based on  qualities or  characteristics of persons recruited and grouped  together, as against those who are left out. Of course, these  qualities  or  characteristics  must  have  a reasonable relation  to the object sought to be achieved. In the case before the Court, the Bench Secretaries in the High Court of Allahabad claimed the same pay as Section Officers. While negativing  this claim, the court said that in service matters merit  or experience  can  be  e  proper  basis  for classification for  the purposes  of pay in order to promote efficiency in administration. That apart, a higher pay-scale to avoid  stagnation or  resultant frustration  for lack  of promotional avenues  is also  an acceptable  reason for  pay differentiation. It observed that although all Bench Secretaries may  do the same work, their quality of work may differ. Bench  Secretaries  (Grade  I)  are  selected  by  a Selection Committee on the basis of merit with due regard to seniority.  A   higher  pay-scale   granted  to  such  Bench Secretaries who  are evaluated by competent authority cannot be challenged.      In the  case of Mewa Ram Kanojia v. All India Institute of  Medical   Sciences  &   Ors.  (1989   2  SCC   235),   a classification   based    on   difference   in   educational qualifications was  held as  justifying a difference in pay- scales. This Court further observed that the judgment of the Pay Commission  in this regard relating to the nature of the job, in  the absence  of material to the contrary, should be accepted. Referring  to these  decisions, this  Court in the case of  Harbans Lal  & Ors.  v. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. (1989 4 SCC 459) summed up the position by stating that a mere nomenclature designating a person as a Carpenter or a Craftsman was  not enough  to come to the conclusion that he was doing  the same  work as  another Carpenter  in  regular

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4  

service. In  that case,  Carpenters employed by the Himachal Pradesh Handicraft  Corporation on daily wages sought parity of wages  with Carpenters  in regular  service.  This  Court negatived this  contention, holding that a comparison cannot be made  with  counterparts  in  other  establishments  with different  management  or  ever  in  the  establishments  in different locations  though   owned by  the same management. The quality  of work  which is produced may be different and even the  nature of  work   assigned may be different. It is not just a comparison  of physical activity. The application of the,  principle   of ’equal  pay for equal work’ requires consideration of   various  dimensions of  a given  job. The accuracy  required and the dexterity that the job may entail may  differ from job to job. It must be left to be evaluated and determined by an expert body. The latest judgment pointed out in this connection is the decision in the case of  Ghaziabad Development  Authority &  Ors.  v  Vikram Chaudhary & Ors.(1995 5 SCC 120).      It  is  therefore,  clear  that  the  quality  of  work performed by  different sets  of persons  holding  different jobs will have to be evaluated. There may be  differences in educational or  technical qualifications  which may  have  a bearing on  the skills which the holders  bring to their job although the  designation of  the job may be the same. There may also  be other   considerations  which have relevance to efficiency in  service which may justify differences in pay- scales on   the  basis of  criteria such  as experience  and seniority,  or a need to prevent stagnation in the cadre, so that good  performance can be elicited from persons who have reached the top of the pay-scale. There may be various other similar  considerations which  may have  a bearing  on efficient performance  in a  job. This  Court has repeatedly observed that  evaluation of  such jobs  for the purposes of pay-scale must  be left  to expert  bodies and, unless there are any mala fides, its evaluation should be accepted.      This Court  in the  case of Harbans Lal & Ors. v. State of Himachal  Pradesh & Ors. (supra) further held that daily- rated workmen  who were  before the  Court in that case were entitled to be paid minimum wages admissible to such workmen as  prescribed   and  not   the  mimimum  in  the  pay-scale applicable to  similar employees  in regular  service unless the employer  had decided  to make  such minimum in the pay- scale  applicable  to  the  daily-rated  workmen.  The  same position is  reiterated in the case of Ghaziabad Development Authority v. Vikram Chaudhary & Ors. (supra).      The respondents,  therefore in  the present appeals who are employed  on daily  wages cannot  be treated as on a par with persons  in regular  service of  the State  of  Haryana holding similar  posts. Daily-rated workers are not required to  possess   the  qualifications   prescribed  for  regular workers, nor do they have to fulfil the requirement relating to age  at the time of recruitment. They are not selected in the manner in which regular employees are selected. In other words the  requirements for  selection are  not as rigorous. There are  also other provisions relating to regular service such as  the liability  of a  member of  the service  to  be transferred, and  his  being  subject  to  the  disciplinary jurisdiction of  the authorities  as prescribed,  which  the daily-rated workmen  are  not  subjected  to.  They  cannot, therefore, be  equated with regular workmen for the purposes for their  wages. Nor  can they  claim the  minimum  of  the regular pay-scale of the regularly employed.      The High  Court was,  therefore, not right in directing that the  respondents should  be paid  the same  salary  and allowances as  are being  paid to  regular employees holding

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

similar  posts   with  effect   from  the   dates  when  the respondents were  employed. If  a minimum wage is prescribed for such workers, the respondents would be entitled to it if it is more than what they are being paid.      The appellants  have fairly  stated that  the Govt.  Of Haryana has,  from time  to time.  issued notifications  for regularisation  of   daily-rated   workmen   such   as   the respondents on the basis of a policy decision taken by it to regularise  the   services  of  such  employees  as  may  be specified. Thus,  under a  Notification of 11th of May, 1994 daily wage  earners who  had completed five years of service as on  31.3.1993 and  who were  covered by that notification were entitled to regularisation of their service. The latest notification in  this regard  is dated  18th of March, ’1996 issued by  the General Adminstration, Govt. of Haryana. This deals with regularisation of Work-Charged/Casual/Daily-rated employees with the State of Haryana. It sets out that it has been decided  to regularise  the service  of all those Work- Charged/Casual/Daily-rated  employees   who  have  completed three years’  service on  31st of  January, 1996  and fulfil other conditions  laid down  in the  Haryana Govt. letter of even number dated 7th of March 1996. Such of the respondents before us  who fulfil  the prescribed  requirements will be, naturally, entitled  to the  benefit of  regularisation.  In fact, it  has been  pointed out to us by the appellants that out  of   6,715  daily-rated   workers,  3,280  are  already regularised as  of, 31st January, 1996. This figure of 3,280 includes 2,082  respondents before us. The balance employees could not  be regularised  as they  have not  yet  completed three year’  of service.  Such regularisation is a matter of policy to be decided upon by the State Government.      In the  premises, the appeals are allowed and judgments and orders  of the  High Court  are set  aside. There  will, however, be no order as the costs.