H.C.Mital, J. - (1.) SURESH Kumar Tewari and forty others are class four employees of respondent no. 2. The U. P. Public Service Commission has engaged on daily wages basis. It is alleged that some of them are working since 1979 and each one of them is working latest from 1986 as given in Annexure 'I' to the writ petition. The posts which the petitioners are holding are that of Mali, Bundle Lifter, Chaukidars Farrash and water-men. Initially they were paid at the rate of Rs. 6/- per working day and subsequently the rate was raised to Rs. 10/- per day and at present it has been raised to Rs. 15/- per day. They do not get any payment on Sundays or Holidays including Second Saturday of each month. It is submitted that the regular pay scales of the same various posts of class four employees are different and substantive pay of none of them is less than Rs. 305/- that the petitioners also discharge a similar kind of duties, obligations and responsibilities as the other regular class four employees. That the Chairman of the Public Service Commission had written a letter dated 24th October, 1
(2.) 86 to the State Government regarding the inequality and justice suffered by the petitioners. In Civil Misc. Writ No. 4956 of 1986 Vishwanath and others v. State of U. P. decided on 8th March 1986 by a Division Bench of this court regarding the daily wages employees of this Honourable Courts held that the daily wage workers were entitled to the same pay as are being paid to regular employees. It is further contended that the vacancies on which the petitioners are working are all permanent vacancies and the same have been lying vacant for a long period. It is further urged that the U. P. Government has also framed rules for regularisation of ad hoc appointees on posts within the purview of Public Service Commission Rules, 1979 as amended in 1984 and according to the said rules a person is entitled for regularisation of his service if he had been directly appointed on ad hoc basis. Before 1st of May 1983 and who has completed three years continuous service; that the Honourable Supreme Court has also in a recent judgment in the case of "Bhartiya Tar Mazdoor Sangh v. Union of India" AIR 1987 SC 2342 has taken the view that an employee who has worked for a period of one year on daily basis ought to have been regularised and directed the post and Telegraph Department for regularising the services of such ad hoc employees. Hence the petitioners have claimed the relief for a writ of mandamus for a direction to the respondent to pay them the same regular grades of salary and allowances as are being paid to the permanently employed class fourth employees in the same office and to regularise their services as Class IV employees in accordance with the U. P. Regularisation of Ad hoc Appointments on (posts within the purview of Public Service Commission) Rules 1979 as amended in 1984 and also in accordance with the aforesaid judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court. On the other hand the petition has been contested on the ground that the petitioners have not been appointed as Class IV employees and as such their educational qualifications do not entitle them to that category of Service and their engagements on daily wages have taken place as and when required. It is, however, admitted that the petitioners are required to do the work usually taken from Class IV employees. It is further stated that the petitioners are being paid their wages as admissible in government order dated November 20, 1987; that the appointment of the petitioners has not been on ad hoc basis against substantive vacancies sactioned by the State Government and, therefore they are not entitled for the benefit of the government order regarding rules for regularisation of ad hoc appointees on the post within the purview of Public Service Commission Rules 1979 as amended in 1984.
(3.) WE have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as State. Prima-facie their appears force in the contention that the petitioners are entitled to the same salary as is paid to the Class IV employees of the respondent no. 2 as they are admittedly doing the same work as performed by Class IV employees of the respondent no. 2. The point stands decided by the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of "Daily R. C. Labour Post and Telegraph Department v. Union of India" AIR 1987 SC 2342. Their Lordships have held that the State cannot deny to casual labourers atleast the minimum pay in the pay scales of regular employees even though the government may not be compelled to extend all the benefits enjoyed by the regularly recruitted employees. The Supreme Court, therefore, directed the Union of India to pay wages to the workmen who were employed as casual labours at the rate equivalent to the minimum pay in the pay scales of the regularly employed workers in the corresponding cadres but without any increments. In that view of the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court it is not necessary to refer to the other decisions. As regards the contention that the petitioners are also entitled to the regular grade of salaries and allowances as are being given to the class IV employees in the same office, the same has no force in view of the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court.;