S. R. Singh, J. - (1.) PETITION in hand has been filed by the Association of Class IV employees of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad through its President Sri Nishit Varma praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents namely, the State of U. P., the High Court through its Registrar and the Chief Justice to regularise the services of those of the Class IV daily rated employees, who have been serving in the establishment of the office of High Court since the years between 1979 and 1981 and also to provide all the facilities and financial benefits to the Daily rated unregularised Class IV employees working) in the establishment of the High Court at par with their regular counter parts performing identical duties.
(2.) THE facts on which the reliefs claimed are founded, are not in dispute. Annexure 1 to the writ petition is a combined list prepared and drawn on 27-7-1984 of the Daily rated employees/labourers selected for appointment to the post of peon. It has come in the counter affidavit (para 6 of the affidavit of Sri Haroon Ahmad, U.D.A. in A/C (D) Litigation Cell High Court) that the employees, who figure at serial Nos. 1 to 78, have already, been absorbed in regular service as peon and those enumerated at serial Nos. 80, 88 and 83 too have been provided regular employement as Drivers and the one mentioned at serial no. 81 has been promoted/appointed to a post in Class-3 cadre. In respect of rest off the Daily rated CJass-4 employees appointed on various dates between the years 1979 and 1981 as mentioned in the list (Annexure-1 to to the writ petition), the defence, as set out in paragraph 10 of the counter affidavit, to the petitioner's claim of regularisation is that the services of the members of the petitioner-Association cannot be made regular unless there are vacancies of such number of posts as may be required to regularise them, are sanctioned by respondent no. 1 i.e, the State of U. P. It has been averred in paragraph 7 of the Counter Affidavit that they will be given regular appointment as and when vacancy occurs from time to time. As regards the second relief, it has been averred in paragraph 12 of the counter affidavit, that only the regular employees of Class-lV cadre are entitled to uniform/liveries and the Daily rated Class-IV employees, it is alleged, are not entitled to be supplied dress/uniform/liveries or allowances therefor, nor are they entitled to get annual increments in pay, though it is conceded, they are entitled to get pay and bonus in terms of the relevant Government orders. To complete the chain of facts, it may be stated that during the course of argument, it did appear to me to be necessary, with a view to avoiding multiplicity of litigation, to address myself to the causes of Daily rated/Casual employees belonging to Class-IV cadre in the establishment of the High Court as a whole and not only in respect of those who are covered by the list Annexure-1 to the writ petition and it is with this view that the Standing Counsel was directed by order dated 6-12-1991 to file a supplementary Counter Affidavit, delineating details about sanctioned strength of permanent and temporary Class -IV posts in the establishment of the High Court, along with the number of vacancies, if any against posts and the number of temporary/adhoc/daily rated Class-IV employees working in the 'establishment'. In compliance with the said order, a supplementary counter affidavit was filed by Sri Haroon Ahmad, Upper Division Asstt. posted in Litigation Cell, High Court, Allahabad. Annexure 1 to the said supplementary Counter Affidavit gives details of sanctioned strength of permanent and temporary Class IV employees in the establishment of the High Court at Allahabad (excluding Lucknow Bench of Allahabad High Court) and the number of vacancies, if any, as on 6-1-1992. Annexure 3 to the said affidavit contains information regarding sanctioned strength of Class-IV (permanent & temporary) posts at Lucknow Bench of the High Court to gether with a list of temporary/adhoc/ daily rated Class-IV employees working in the Lucknow Bench as on 17/18-12- 91, accompanied by a covering letter of even date written by Sri H.D. Kandpal, Dy. Registrar, High Court, Lucknow Bench Lucknow to Sri P. C. Agarwal, the then Additional Registrar High Court, Allahabad in response to letter No. 2924/Litigatioo Cell dated December 10, 1991. From the letter dated 9-1-1992 of Sri H. D. Kandpal addressed to Sri P. C. Agarwal, it appears that in the list aforesaid, one permanent Driver was omitted besides one Daily Labourer Ram Asrey appointed as Photo Machine Operator. The sanctioned strength of permanent and temporary Class-IV employees in the establishment of the High Court at Allahabad as on 6-1- 1992 was as under :- JUDGEMENT_765_AWC2_1994Image1.jpg Similarly, the sanctioned strength of permanent and temporary Class- IV posts at Lucknow, as on 18-12-1991, was as under : JUDGEMENT_765_AWC2_1994Image2.jpg A list of 137 Daily labourers working in the establishment of the High Court at Allahabad has also been filed along with Annexure-2 to the said supplementary counter-affidavit. The list shows that the first one of the Daily labourers namely Basni-lV was appointed on 1-8-1980 and the last one Ram Naresh Kannaujia on 5-8-91. Some of these Class-IV employees including the last one, were initially appointed as Casual labourers. In addition to the said list, there is another list consisting of seven Class-lV employees namely, Rajendra Prasad Rawat, Virendra Kumar, Munna Lal, Faizan Ahmad, John Scissor, Laxman Tripathi and Jokhan Ahir, each one of them is shown to be drawing wages at the rate of Rs. 750/- per month. In addition to these lists, there is a list of 136 Casual labourers from Shyam Lal to Smt. Bitti Devi appointed between 1-3-88 and 1-12-91. All these Casual labourers are shown as being paid wages at the rate of Rs. 25/- per working day The list of temporary\adhoc/Daily rated Class IV employees working in the establishment of the High Court at Lucknow Bench consists of 123 employees, some of whom are shown as being paid salary/wages at the rate of Rs. 1428/- per month, while some others at the rate of Rs. 25/- per day. Period of their appointments falls between 11-8-83 and 27-5-91 (both the dates inclusive) except Sri Ramu, who was appointed on 1-8-1978 as a regular peon, but as a result of some disciplinary action, he is shown to have been reverted to the post of Daily labourer.
(3.) A perusal of the Chart showing the sanctioned strength of permanent and temporary posts in the establishment of the High Court (both at Allahabad and Lucknow), would indicate that the Daily labourers and Casual labourers (In short DL/CL) referred to above, have out-nubered the sanctioned strength of permanent and temporary posts in Class-IV cadre. The questions which arise for consideration are, (I) Whether any direction can be issued for the regularisation of such employees, and (2) whether nomenclatural classification of the employees for purposes of payment of wages/salary is justifiable in the facts and circumstances of the case, and (3) whether any direction can be issued for payment of salary to employees designated as Casual labourers at par with those who are designated as daily labourers. The questions of regularisation of adhoc/Daily rated/Casual employees and of equal pay for equal work have engaged the attention of this Court as also of the apex Court of the land, from time to time, in a large number of cases and the Courts have also endeavoured to do justice in individual cases within the periphery of the Constitution, but a perusal of various decisions of the apex Court on the point in issue, divulges that the question of regularisation defies solution of universal application. There may be more reasons to it than one but the principal factor appears to be the indiscriminate/indiscreet appointments on Adhoc/Daiiy rated/casual basis, as if the process had been elevated to the status as the order of the day. However, In a case where it is found that Adhoc/Daily rated/Casual employees have been allowed to work for a considerable length of time, the courts have always sought to direct their regularisation within the frame-work of the Constitution. In the case of 'Dharwad Diztt PWD Literate Daily Wages Employees Association v. State of Karnataka, ADR 1990 SC 883 at p. 887 (para 11), it has been observed by the Supreme Court as under. "We have referred to several precedents-all rendered within the current decade-to emphasise upon the feature that equal pay for equal work and providing security for service by regularising casual employees within a reasonable period have been unanimously accepted by this Court as the Constitutional goal to our socialistic polity." ;