R.B.Mehrotra, J. - (1.) By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner has claimed that the petitioner is admittedly senior to one Sri Shyam Behari, a conductor in U.P. State Road Transport Corporation, Varanasi Region, Varanasi and is entitled to get the same treatment which Sri Shyam Behari got in the matter of payment of salary.
(2.) There was a dispute regarding the question as to whether the petitioner is senior to Shri Shyam Behari. The petitioner filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 23609 of 1987 in this Court wherein it was directed that petitioner's representation in respect of his seniority should be decided. In pursuance thereof, the petitioner's seniority was determined by an order, dated August 10, 1989, and petitioner was declared to be senior to said Shyam Behari. The petitioner has averred in his writ petition that Shyam Behari was appointed as a regular conductor on temporary basis in the year 1985 whereas the petitioner continued to be paid only on daily wage basis. The petitioner is claiming that since Shyam Behari was junior to the petitioner, the petitioner is also entitled to get the same wages which Shyam Behari was getting as a temporary conductor. The petitioner has also averred in his writ petition that the petitioner has performed his duties as daily wage conductor from April 29, 1985 to July 15, 1985, thereafter from April 17, 1986 to June 30, 1986 and subsequent thereto the petitioner joined on July 22, 1987 and till date the petitioner is discharging his duties as conductor but on daily wages. The case of the respondent is that a select list was prepared on region basis and then various conductors were transferred to various Depots and they were given appointments as and when vacancy occurred. The petitioner was accordingly given appointment when the vacany arose in the Depot to which the petitioner was sent. Therefore, the petitioner cannot be given the same treatment which Shyam Behari was given who has worked regularly on temporary basis since 1985 whereas the petitioner did not work for the same period. Submission of the petitioner is that he is not claiming salary or wages for the period for which he had not worked but since he has been senior to Shyam Behari, he should get the same salary which Shyam Behari got for the period the petitioner actually worked as conductor.
(3.) I have given a careful consideration to the submissions made by the counsel for the parties. Since the respondent himself has declared the petitioner to be senior to Shyam Behari, the petitioner is entitled to get the same salary which Shyam Behari got as a regular conductor on temporary basis. Even otherwise it is settled principle that the daily wagers performing the same duties should get same wages which regular persons are getting. Since the petitioner was doing the same duties which the regular conductor is doing, the petitioner is entitled for the same wages which the regular conductor is getting. In this view of the matter, the writ petition deserves to be allowed. The respondent is directed to pay the petitioner the difference of salary which Shyam Behari got as a regular temporary conductor and the petitioner got on daily wages basis. Actual computation shall be done by the respondents on petitioner's making an application, within two weeks from today. The respondent will compute the difference of the petitioner's salary, within a month from the date of the receipt of the certified copy of this order and will pay the difference to the petitioner for the period to which he actually worked, within a period of one month.;