- (1.) BRIJESH Kamar, J. In all the writ petitions mentioned above, common questions are involved, hence they have been heard together and are also being disposed of by a common judgment.
(2.) THE petitioners, in the above noted writ petitions, except writ petition No. 1502 (S/s) of 1992 filed by the State (Engineer-in-Chief. Irrigation Department, V. P. v. Makrand Singh, are part-time tube-well operators, who have prayed for issue of a writ of mandamus commanding the opposite parties to pay them in the regular scale of pay which is admissible and is being paid to full-time tube-well operator. A prayer for quashing the notification, dated 20-2-1992 (contained in Annexure-1 to writ petition No. 3558 (S/s) of 1992 has also been made, by which their nomenclature has been changed from part-time tube- well operator to tube-well assistants and an honoraria of Rs, 550 per month has been fixed in lieu of pay. It has been prayed that their services may be regularised on the post of tube-well operators. Some of the part-time tube-well operators had been raised an industrial dispute in connection with payment of same wages as are being paid to regular tube-well operators, which was decided by the labour court in their favour. The opposite parties have challenged the award of the labour court by filing Writ Petition No. 1592 (S/s) of 1992. Since the same questions are under consideration, this petition [viz. , Writ Petition No. 1502 (S/s) of 1992] has also been heard, as indicated above, along with the bunch. It appears that the services of tubewell operators were needed for operating tube-wells in the command areas for irrigation of agricultural fields. After their selection, they had to undergo some kind of a short training of fifteen days or a month and after passing the examination, they were allowed to join their duties. Many of the petitioners have been working since long, say, may be for about tea years ; they had been appointed as part-time tube-well operators on consolidated salary of Rs. 299 per month. Their appoint ments were normally for a period of three years whereafter their services were to be terminated and re-appointment was being given only if they were found suitable. This condition of three years' appointment and thereafter assessing their suitability again before issuing fresh appointment orders was challenged and the orders of termination on lapse of three years had been quashed by this Court. A copy of the judgment, dated 1-1-1990 has been filed as Annexure-2 to writ petition No. 3558 (S/s) of 1992. Such conditions of services of tubewell operators, as prescribed by Office Memorandum issued from the office of Engineer-in -Chief, Irrigation, U. P. dated February 8, 1982 are contained in Annexure CA-2 to the counter affidavit filed in Writ Petition No. 3558 (S/s) of 1992. On internal page 5 of Annexure CA-2, it is provided that part-time tubewell operations were to work for a limited time and during rest of the time, they could do their own work. Their duty hours were fixec1 as 9,30 a. m. to 12 in the noon. It also provided that during off duty time, generally they should be available within the command areas. It also provid ed that they should belong to the village itself. Ultimately, however, a G. O. , dated 20-2-1992 was issued by the Government, addressed to the Engineer-in-Chief, Irrigation; after reviewing the whole petition in regard to services of part-time tube-well operators it provided that they would be called as tube-well assistants. All of them ware to be given appointment letters in the prescribed form. It also provided that those who do not agree to be appointed after the issuance of the said G. O. on the new terms, against than further action shall be taken. Instead of Rs. 200 per month, a sum of Rs. 550 per month as honorarium was made admissible A provision for incentive allowance was also made. The petitioners have objected to the change of their nomenclature as well as payment of honorarium and other conditions of service, hence the said G. O. , dated February 29, 1992 has also been challenged.
(3.) ACCORDING to the petitioners, nature of their work is the same as that of the regular tube-well operators. They are also equally qualified. ACCORDING to the petitioner, the condition of duty hours that part-time tube-well operators were to work only two and a half hours a day, is only a condition on paper; they have to work for the whole day as the irrigation is dependent upon the availability of electricity. Therefore, whenever, electricity is available, they are required and called upon to operate the tube-wells. The amount of labour put in by them is the same as put in by the regular full-time tube- well operator, on the basis of the submissions made above, they claim their regular appointment as tube-well operators and the scale of pay as revised and paid to full-time tube-well operators. The claim of disparity of the petitioners has, however, been denied by the opposite parties. A counter affidavit has been filed by one Shri Komal Prasad, dated 11-11-1992. Along with the affidavit, he has annexed a copy of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State in Writ Petition No. 3554 of 1992- Subhash Chandra Dohre v. State of U. P. It is averred that the said detailed counter affidavit be also read in the instant petitions.;