http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

PETITIONER: U.P. INCOME-TAX DEPARTMENT CONTINGENT PAID STATEWELFARE ASSO

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT04/12/1987

BENCH: VENKATARAMIAH, E.S. (J) BENCH: VENKATARAMIAH, E.S. (J) SINGH, K.N. (J)

CITATION:  1988 AIR  517            1988 SCR  (2) 170  1987 SCC  Supl.  658     JT 1987 (4)   585  1987 SCALE  (2)1222  CITATOR INFO :  R          1988 SC 519  (4)  F          1990 SC 883  (8)

ACT:      Contingent Paid Staff-Regularisation of their Services.

HEADNOTE: %      The petitioner,  the Association of the U.P. Income-tax Department Contingen.  Paid Staff  is  aggrieved  that  even though its  members have  been rendering service as class IV employees in  the U.P.  Incometax  Department  for  a  large number of  years, the  Department is  not regularising their services and  absorbing them  in the  class lV services, and they are  being paid  wages as  daily rated labourers, lower than  the  salary  and  allowances  paid  to  the  class  IV employees of  the Department.  The petitioner  filed a  Writ Petition in  this Court,  praying for a writ of mandamus for the relief above-mentioned.      Allowing the petition, the Court, ^      HELD: The  questions involved  in this  case are almost the same  as in the Writ Petitions Nos. 373 and 302 of 1986, decided by  this Court  by its  judgment dated  October  27, 1987, reported in Daily Rated Casual Labour Employed under P JUDGMENT: Union of  India and  Ors. (JT.  1987 [4]  S.C. 164), and the same orders/directions  as given  in that case, be passed in this case. Accordingly, respondents directed to pay wage. to the workmen employed as contingent paid staff 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,  without any  increments  with  effect from December  1, 1986.  Such workmen  are also  entitled to corresponding dearness  allowance  and  additional  dearness allowance payable  thereon. Whatever  other benefits are now being enjoyed  by the  said workmen  shall  continue  to  be extended to  them. The respondents shall prepare a scheme on a rational  basis for  absorbing  as  far  as  possible  the contingent paid staff of the Income-tax Department, who have

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

been continuously working for more than one year as Class lV employees in the Income-tax Department. [l7lH; 172H; 173A-C] 171

&      ORIGINAL JURISDICTION:  Writ Petition  (Civil) No. 1670 of 1986.      (Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India).      R.C. Kaushik for the Petitioner.      V.C. Mahajan,  Ms. A. Subhashini and Girish Chandra for the Respondents.      The following order of the Court was delivered                             O R D E R      This is a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.      The petitioner  in this  case is  the  U.P.  Income-tax Department Contingent  Paid Staff  Welfare Association.  The members  of  the  said  association,  as  the  name  of  the Association itself  suggests, are  the contingent paid staff in the  Income-tax Department.  Their complaint is that even though they  have been  rendering the  service as  Class  IV employees in the Income-tax Department for a large number of years, the  Income-tax Department  has not  taken  steps  to regularise their  services and  to absorb them as members of the Class  IV services and that they are being paid wages as daily rated  labourers lower  than the salary and allowances which the  Class IV  employees of  the Department  have been drawing. They  pray for the issue of a writ in the nature of mandamus to  the respondents to pay them the same salary and allowances which are paid to the employees of the Department in corresponding  posts  and  also  for  regularising  their service. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents. The respondents do not deny that the contingent paid staff  are being  paid daily  wages lower  than what is being paid  to regular  employees. It also refers to certain Government order  providing for regularisation under certain terms and conditions.      When this  petition came  up for  admission  the  Court directed that  this case should be listed after the disposal of the  Writ Petitions No. 373 and 302 of 1986 instituted by the daily  rated casual  labour employed  in the  Posts  and Telegraph Department,  since the  questions involved in this case and  in those  two writ petitions were almost the same. By its  judgment dated  27.10.1987  in  Daily  Rated  Casual Labour employed under P & T Department 172 though Bhartiya  Dak Tar  Mazdoor Manch  v. Union of lndia & Ors., (JT.  1987 4  S.C. 164,  this  Court  has  issued  the following directions as regards the claim of the daily rated workmen involved therein for higher wages:-                "We accordingly direct the Union of India and           the other  respondents to pay wages to the workmen           who are  employed as casual labourers belonging to           the several  categories of  employees referred  to           above in  the Posts  & Telegraph Department at the           rates equivalent  to the  minimum pay  in the  pay           scales of  the regularly  employed workers  in the           corresponding cadres  but without  any  increments           with effect  from 5th February, 1986 on which date           the first of the above two petitions, namely, Writ           Petition  No.   302  of   1986  was   filed.   The           petitioners are entitled to corresponding Dearness           Allowance and  Additional Dearness  Allowance?  if

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

         any,  payable  thereon.  Whatever  other  benefits           which  are   now  being   enjoyed  by  the  casual           labourers shall continue to be extended to them."      On the  claim for regularisation of the services of the workmen involved  in the  above-mentioned case,  this  Court issued the following direction:-                "We, therefore, direct all the respondents to           prepare a scheme on a rational basis for absorbing           as far  as possible  the casual labourers who have           been continuously  working for  more than one year           in the Posts and Telegraph Department."      The facts  and circumstances  of the  present case  are similar to  the facts and circumstances of the case relating to the  daily  rated  labour  in  the  Posts  and  Telegraph Department. We  have carefully  considered the  pleas in the counter-affidavit. The  Government orders  providing for the absorption of  the contingent  paid staff are hedged in by a number of  conditions. We also find that many such employees have been  working on daily wages for nearly eight years and more. We  are not  satisfied with the scheme which is now in force. We are, therefore, of the view that in this case also we should issue the same directions as in the above decision for the reasons given by the Court in the above decision. We accordingly  allow   this  Writ   Petition  and  direct  the respondents to  pay wages to the workmen who are employed as the contingent paid staff of the Income-tax Department 173 throughout India,  doing the  work of  Class IV employees at the A  rates equivalent  to the minimum pay in the pay-scale of the  regularly  employed  workers  in  the  corresponding cadres,  without   any  increments   with  effect  from  1st December,  1986.   Such  workmen   are  also   entitled   to corresponding Dearness  Allowance  and  Additional  Dearness Allowance payable thereon. Whatever other benefits which are now being  enjoyed by  the said workman shall continue to be extended to  them. We  further  direct  the  respondents  to prepare a scheme on a rational basis for absorbing as far as possible  the   contingent  paid  staff  of  the  Income-tax Department who  have been continuously working for more than one year as Class IV employees in the Income-tax Department.      This petition  is accordingly disposed of with no order as to costs. S.L.                                       Petition allowed. 174