VIDYA SHARMA Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners have claimed the following reliefs herein : (1) they be paid the wages and allowances at the rate equivalent to the remuneration and allowances paid to the regularly appointed clerks and (2) they be given all those facilities, such as, holidays, medical leave etc. which are admissible to the regularly appointed clerks. The reliefs have been claimed on the basis that although they have been appointed as daily -rated Beldars on different dates between March, 1980 and February, 1987, they have throughout their respective period of employment performed the functions and discharged the duties of clerical nature. Para 2 of the petition gives the particulars with respect to the period of employment of each of the petitioners. Paras 3, 5 and 6 of the petition and identical paras of the affidavit -in -rejoinder contain the requisite averments concerning the nature of functions performed and duties discharged by the petitioners. The case set out therein is that the petitioners have been actually performing the duties of clerical nature, independently and satisfactorily, eversince their engagement as daily -rated Beldars, that the nature of work taken from them is similar to that performed by the regularly appointed clerks and that their working hours as well as the responsibilities shouldered, by them are the same as those of the regular employees of the corresponding category. The foundation for claiming the reliefs above -mentioned is the doctrine of "equal pay for equal work".

(2.) The petition is resisted on several grounds by nd on behalf of the respondents. Their case is set out in the affidavit -in -reply dated August 17, 1988, filed by the Director of Agriculture, Himachal Pradesh. The general ground of defence is that the nature of employment of the two categories of employees (regular and daily -rated) is basically different, that there are no sanctioned posts against which the daily -rated employees are engaged whereas the regular employees are recruited against the sanctioned posts, that the daily -rated employees are not engaged through the Employment Exchange whereas the regular employees are appointed in accordance with the Recruitment and Promotion Rules through the Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission, that the conditions of employment/service governing both the categories of employees are dissimilar and that the nature of functions performed and duties discharged by the employees of each category are also not comparable. It is pointed out that whereas the regular employees are assigned specific duties and responsibilities and their work, conduct and performance are assessed at regular intervals on the basis of the annual confidential reports for the purposes of granting increments and allowing the crossing of the Efficiency Bar, the daily -rated employees are not subjected to any such periodical review. Moreover, whereas in case of unsatisfactory work, conduct and performance, the regular employees are liable to disciplinary action under the rules and the losses, if any, caused by them can be recovered from their gratuity, pension etc , these rules are not applicable to the daily -waged casual labourers.

(3.) Besides, whereas a regular employee is a whole -time Government servant who can be asked to perform any duty depending upon the exigency of work at any odd hours/holidays without the payment of any additional remuneration, a daily -rated employee is required to perform the work assigned to him only during the limited hours of his employment under the control and supervision of the regular employee(s). So far as the factual aspect of the present case and the actual work performed by the petitioners are concerned, the following averments are made in para 3 of the affidavit -in - reply: "The petitioners were not appointed as clerks by the respondent No. 3 at any stage. However, miscellaneous duties were taken from the petitioners viz. maintenance of record, preparation of Register of store articles/compilation work and typing etc. under the supervision of regular employees, which does not confer any right upon the petitioners to claim pay at par with the regular clerks."