- (1.) The factual matrix is not in dispute. From the record produced it is discernible that the services of one draftsman were required by the respondents for area calculation and allied work for Urban Land use mapping of Hissar Project. As a natural sequel offer was made through employment exchange for appointment on daily wages and the petitioner who accepted the same was accordingly appointed on daily wages as draftsman initially for three months which was later extended for another three months. On the expiry of the extended period of three months, he was relieved on 30,6.1990, i.e. on completion of six months. Another person was appointed as draftsman on daily wages just for 15 days i.e. from 12.7.1990 to 26.7.1990.
(2.) The grievance of the petitioner is that the petitioner is entitled to equal pay for equal work as he was discharging the same functions, duties and responsibilities as the draftsmen appointed on regular basis. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon Karam Singh versus State ofJ&K, 1986 AIR(SC) 584and Bhagwan Dass versus State ofHaryana, 1987 AIR(SC) 2048
(3.) Learned counsel for the respondent refuted the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and contended that in view of the facts and circumstances noted above the petitioner cannot claim salary on the basis of regular pay scale invoking the doctrine of equal pay for equal work. He placed reliance upon State of Madhya Pradesh versus Pramod Bhartiya, 1993 AIR(SC) 286wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court after taking note of law laid down by a string of authorities has observed: "In this case the differentiation has been sought to be justified in view of the nature any types of the work done, that is, on intelligible basis. The same amount of physical work may entail different quality of work, some more sensitive, some requiring, more act, some less - it varies from nature and culture of employment. The problem about equal pay cannot always be translated into a mathematical formula. It if has a rational nexus with the object sought for, as reiterated before a certain amount of value judgment of the administrative authorities who are charged with fixing the pay scales has to be left with them and it cannot be interfered with by the Court unless it is demonstrated that either it is irrational or based on no basis or arrived malafide either in law or in fact. In the light of the averments made in the facts mentioned before, it is not possible to say that the differentiation is based on no rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved." Keeping in view the proposition of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in implementing the principle of equal pay for equal work which has been further clarified on the factual matrix we find that the petitioner was appointed only for area calculation and allied work for the Urban land use mapping for a short period of three months. By no stretch of imagination, his duties and responsibilities can be equated with these draftsmen who were employed on regular basis. He being a daily wager was not subject to disciplinary control like regular employees. He was at liberty to come on the next day or not. He did not have the same responsibility towards his employer to discharge the functions as the regular draftsmen had. Consequendy, the principle of equal pay for equal work cannot be invoked in the facts and circumstances of this case.;