Nanavati, J. - (1.) Both these appeals arise out of the judgment and order dated 29-1-1992 of the Rajasthan High Court in D. B. Civil Writ petition No. 187 of 1987. Civil Appeal No. 652 of 1993 is filed by the State of Rajasthan, Respondent No. 1 in the writ petition and Civil Appeal No. 653 of 1993 is filed by Kunji Raman who was the writ petitioner. Both these appeals are, therefore, heard together and disposed of by this common judgment.
(2.) Kunji Raman was employed on March 28, 1974 as a Fitter in the Mechanical Division-II of Mahi Project. He was promoted and appointed as Lathe Operator on October 23, 1975. On January 12, (sic) 1987 he filed the aforesaid writ petition on his behalf and on behalf of 36 other employees, as benefits of house rent allowance, project allowance, leave encasement are not given to them on the ground that the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 (for short RSR) and the Rajasthan Service (Concessions on Project) Rules, 1962 (for short Project Rules) are not applicable to them as they are work-charged employees. It was the contention of the petitioner that persons employed as work-charged employees perform the same functions and discharge the same duties as workmen on the regular establishment and, therefore, differential treatment given to them amounts to hostile discrimination. It was also contended that on the principle of equal pay for equal work workmen of the work-charged establishment are entitled to same benefits as are made available to the workmen on the regular establishment. The validity of the RSR and Project Rules was also challenged on the ground that they are violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution inasmuch as they deny equal treatment to the workmen of the work-charged establishment.
(3.) The High Court held that the employees who are on regular establishment and the employees employed on work-charged establishment do not belong to the same class and are governed by different set of Rules; and, therefore, they cannot claim parity with the regular establishment employees on the basis of the principle of equaly pay for equal work. It rejected the contention that clauses (g), (h) and (i) of Rule 2 of RSR are discriminatory and, therefore, violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. However, on the ground that project allowance payable under the Project Rules is compensatory in nature and not a source of profit to the employees, it held that on the basis of the doctrine of equal pay for equal work compensatory allowance has to be paid to the work-charged employees also at the same rate at which it is being paid to the employees on regular establishment. The High Court, for that reason, struck down Rules 2(b) and (d) of the 1962 Projects Rules and Rule 4(2) and (4) of 1975 Project Rules also (as 1975 Project Rules had replaced 1962 Project Rules) as violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. It further held that the Project Rules would, therefore, apply to all the employees working on Mahi Project irrespective of whether they are permanent, temporary or work-charged employees. The High Court allowed the writ petition and declared that the petitioner and other work-charged employees working on the Mahi Sagar Project are entitled to payment of project allowance in the same manner in which they are paid to the permanent or temporary staff working on the project. Calling in question, this part of the judgment and order, the State has filed, with the leave of this Court, Civil Appeal No. 652 of 1993. As the High Court held that the petitioner and other work-charged employees shall not be entitled to any arrears and that they should be paid the project allowance under the 1975 Rules from the date of the order, the petitioner has filed Civil Appeal No. 653 of 1993.;