DEVI PRASAD SINGH, J. - (1.) CONTRO ­versy involved in this bunch of writ pe­titions relates to common question of facts and law, hence all these writ petitions are being disposed of by this common judg­ment.
(2.) ALL these writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India have been preferred feeling aggrieved with the ceil­ing imposed for the payment of dearness allowance by the opposite parties. The petitioners claim to be work charge employees working in the State Bridge Corporation (in short to be here­inafter referred to as 'Corporation'). The State Government as well as the Corpora­tion took a decision that the work charge employees working whether in the State Government or in the Corporation, shall not be entitled for payment of dearness allow­ance at par with the regular incumbent. Accordingly, the ceiling was imposed providing maximum limit on payment of dearness allowance. Earlier, writ petition No. 1032 (S/S) of 2003, Noor Ahmad and oth­ers v. State of U.P. and another, was filed, in which this Court had directed the respond­ents to decide the controversy by passing a reasoned order keeping in view the judg­ment and order dated 6.5.2005, passed in writ petition No. 5505 of 1999, Prabhu Narain Sharma v. State of U.P. In pursuance to the order passed by this Court, by the impugned order dated June 8, 2006 (Annexure-10), the respondents have re­jected the petitioners' claim on the ground that in case the dearness allowances are paid to the workcharge employees at par with the regular employees, it shall create an additional burden of Rs. 6 crores per year on the corporation. While rejecting the petitioners' case, it has also been in­dicated by the respondents that the cor­poration is running in loss to the tune of Rs. 32.85 crores.
(3.) WHILE assailing the impugned or­der, the petitioners' Counsel has relied upon a judgment delivered by me on 6.5.2005 in writ petition No. 5505 of 1999, Prabhu Narain Sharma v. State of U.P. (reported in 2006 (24) LCD 1053). While deciding the con­troversy, a catena of judgments of the Apex Court as well as the constitutional provi­sions have been considered elaborately and it has been held that no ceiling may be imposed on payment of dearness allowance to the workcharge employees. A finding has been recorded that any ceiling imposed on payment of dearness allowance to the workcharge employees shall be hostile discrimination and hit by Articals 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. For con­venience, paragraphs 19 and 20 of Prabhu Narayan's case are reproduced as under: "19. As discussed hereinabove the ceiling on dearness allowance affects the right of livelihood as well as quality of life, of the workcharge employees, it is different thing in case the State Government would have taken a decision not to pay clearness allowance to work charge employees on some sound grounds but once the State Govern­ment, took a decision for payment of dear-ness allowance there should not be dispar­ity in payment of dearness allowance by providing ceiling, payable to work charge employees. In the case of Hindustan Lever Ltd. v. B.N. Dougre and others (supra), Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the ceiling on the dearness allowance to monthly rated cleri­cal and technical staff working in Sewree factory was illegal. For convenience relevant portion from the judgment of Apex Court in Hindustan Lever Ltd. (supra) is repro­duced as under: "14. It is in the above background that we must consider the question of place of a ceiling on dearness allowance. As is so well known, wages are among the major factors in the economic and social life of the working classes. Workers and their families depend almost entirely on wages to provide themselves with the three basic requirements of food, clothing and shelter. The other necessities of life like children's education, medical expenses, etc, must also come out to the emoluments earned by the bread-winner. Workers are therefore concerned with the purchasing power of the pay packet he receives for his toil. If the rise in the pay packet does not keep pace with the rise in prices of essential the purchasing power of the pay packet does not keep pace with the rise in prices of essentials, the purchasing power of the pay packet fails reducing the real wages leaving the workers and their families worse off. Therefore, if on account of inflation prices rise while the pay packet remains frozen, real wages will fall sharply. This is what hap­pens in periods of inflation. In order to prevent such a fall in real wage, different methods are adopted to provide for the rise in prices. In the cost-of-living sliding scale systems the basic wages are automatically adjusted to price changes shown by the cost of living index. In this way the purchasing power of workers' wages I maintained to the extent possible and necessary. However, lap-frogging must be avoided. This Court in Clerks of Calcutta Tramways v. Calcutta Tramways Company Ltd., AIR 1957 SC 78 [(1956 (2) LLJ 450] held that while awarding dearness allowance cent percent neutrali­zation of the price of cost of living should be avoided to check inflationary tends. That in why in Hindustan Times Ltd. v. Their Workmen, AIR 1963 SC 1332 [(1963)LLJ 108], Das Gupta, J. observed that the whole purpose of granting dearness allowance to workmen being to neutralize the portion of the increase in the cost of living, it shall ordinarily by on a sliding scale and provide for an increase when the cost of living increases and a decrease when it falls." In one another case reported in AIR 1986 SC 1794. The monthly rated workmen at the Wadala Factory of the Indian Hume Pipe Company Ltd. v. The Indian Hume Pile Company Ltd., Bombay (supra), Hon'ble Supreme Court had repelled the respond­ents submission to provide any ceiling on the dearness allowance. Relevant portion from the Apex Court judgment in The monthly rated workmen at the Wadala Factory of the Indian Hume Pipe Company Ltd. (supra) is reproduced as under: "The learned Counsel for the respond­ents made a strong plea for substitution of the existing system of clearness allowance with ceiling on the quantum of clearness allowance. We have already indicated that in the absence of compelling materials system that gives benefit to the workmen cannot lightly be interfered with to their detriment. The theory of ceiling on the quantum of clearness allowance cannot be accepted since under the prevailing conditions there is no control over the prices of essential commodi­ties and as such a ceiling would no give sufficient cushion when prices of essential commodities continuously rise." 20. In the case of State of West Ben­gal and others v. Pantha Chatterji (supra) Hon'ble Supreme Court had held that the persons working as part time Border Wing Home Guards recruited for patrolling the border and checking infiltration and work­ing since more than 14 years performing same duties shall be entitled for parity in privileges and monetary benefits with their counter part working as permanent B WHO, not made BSF personal they can not be treated differentially as they also use to assist border security force personal along the borders of the country. For conven­ience relevant portion from the Apex Court judgment from Pantha Chatterji's case (supra) is reproduced as under: "16. In the present case, we have seen that there has not been any dispute about the nature of duties of the two sets of BWHG. Ordinarily, no doubt, they could claim benefits only in accordance with the Scheme under which they were engaged. But as held earlier, the scheme was not implemented in its terms as framed. Hence, the distinction sought to be drawn between the part-time and the permanent BWHG had obliterated and both worked together shoulder to shoulder under similar situa­tions and circumstances and discharged same duties. Once the scheme as famed failed to be implemented as such by those at the helm of the affairs and the part-time BWHG were continues under the authority of those vested with such power to continue them, it is not open to the State Government or the Central Government to deny them the same benefits as admissible to members of the permanent staff of BWHG. The deci­sion reported in Karnataka State Private College Stop-gap Lecturers Assn. v. State of Karnataka and Government of India v. Court Liquidators' employees Assn. may also be beneficially referred to. 18. In the circumstances indicated above, the High Court has rightly come to the conclusion that the so-called part-time Border Wing Home Guards could not be treated differently from the permanent staff of BWHG. They have been rightly accorded parity with them." ;