Jawahar Lal Gupta, J. - (1.) The petitioner was appointed as a Sweeper on daily wage basis on December 1, 1990. It is averred that the petitioner was paid wages as fixed by the Deputy Commissioner amounting to about Rs. 800/- per month while regular employees were paid salary in the scale of Rs. 750-940. On July 9, 1991, his services were terminated. Claiming that he had a right to be regularised, the petitioner filed Civil Writ petition No. 11313 of 1991 in this Court. It was disposed of vide order dated July 29, 1991 with the observation that the petitioner should file a representation to the authority concerned and in case he is aggrieved by any order passed on the representation, it will be open to him to resort to a remedy before a Court of law. A direction for expeditious disposal of the representation was also given to the department. The petitioner's representation having been rejected vide order dated January 17, 1992, he has filed the present petition in this Court. Herein, the petitioner had inter alia prayed for setting aside of the order passed on his representation and for his reinstatement in service with effect form July 10, 1991. A further prayer for the issue of a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to grant the petitioner regular pay scale of Rs. 750-940 from the date of his initial appointment has also been made.
(2.) At the time of preliminary hearing, the Motion Bench directed the issue of notice of motion only in respect of the claim for parity of treatment in the matter of pay. Accordingly, Mr. I.D. Singla, learned counsel for the petitioner, has pressed this petition in respect of his claim for the regular scale of pay of Rs. 750-940. Learned counsel specifically stated before me that he does not challenge the order of termination of the order passed by the General Manager, Haryana Roadways, Karnal (Annexure P-1).
(3.) The claim for parity of treatment in the matter of pay scale is based on the averment in paragraph 6 of the petition. It reads as under:- "That for the sake of repetition, the petitioner was appointed on daily wages rates fixed by the Deputy Commissioner, Karnal. Normally about Rs. 800/- were being paid to the petitioner as a total wages of the month, whereas all other similarly placed temporary/permanent sweepers are being paid the regular pay scale of Rs. 750-940. The total salary be including the allowances such as DA and other allowances, comes about Rs. 1300/- per month. The denial of the same has also led to the breach of Articles 14 and 16 read with 39-D of the Constitution of India and also against the principle of Equal Pay for Equal Word." On the basis of the above averments, it is contended that the petitioner is entitled to be placed in the regular pay scale of Rs. 750-940. I am unable to accept this contention. There is no averment that the petitioner is discharging the same duties as other temporary or permanent sweepers who have been placed in the regular scale of Rs. 750-940/-. A person appointed on daily wages is not at par with another appointed on temporary or permanent basis. A person on daily wages gets pay on the date on which he reports for duty and works. The level of his responsibility is entirely different from that of a person appointed on regular basis. If a person appointed on regular basis is absent from duty, disciplinary action can be taken against him. As against this, a person working on daily wages, may not report for duty on a particular day. In the normal course, all that he loses, are the wages for that day. If any person appointed on daily wages had been placed in the scale of pay meant for regular employees, the petitioner could have had a legitimate grievance. This is not so. In such a situation, and in view of the fact that there is a vital difference between those appointed on daily wages and others appointed on regular basis, it is not possible to hold that the action of the respondents is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.;