M.R. Calla, J. - (1.) The petitioners have filed this writ petition claiming the relief for regularisation of services as Class IV Employees coupled with the relief of the minimum pay of the prescribed pay scale for Class IV Employees on the basis of the principle of 'equal pay for equal work'.
(2.) The four petitioners were appointed on the dates indicated against their names as under:- JUDGEMENT_76_LAWS(RAJ)12_1990_1.html
(3.) All these four employees were appointed in the Medical and Health Department under C.M. and H.O., Alwar on daily wages which were increased from time to time from Rs. 7/- per day to Rs. 14/- per day and at the time of the filing the writ petition, the petitioners were receiving Rs. 14/- per day. The petitioners have come with a case that they are being paid for 26 days in a month and 4 days break which is being given is only an artificial break and otherwise the petitioners are continuing right from their date of appointments as given above. A document Annex. 5 dated 15th January, 1990 has been placed on record, which is a letter issued by the Directorate of Medical and Health Services addressed to all C.M. and H.O. and the Medical Officer Incharges of the Government Hospitals in relation to the daily wages employees. In this letter it has been impressed that whereas the ban on the appointments was no more in force, no employees be retained on daily wages and in accordance with the Government order dated 27th of December, 1989 endorsed by the Directorate on 30th December, 1989 and in accordance with the directions as has been referred in this letter dated 15th January, 1990, prompt action be taken to give regular appointments to daily wage earners on priority basis and accordingly regular appointments be given. It has been stated that on behalf of the petitioners a notice for demand of justice was served upon the respondents seeking regularisation of their services and to pay them in accordance with the principle of 'equal pay for equal work'. In para 7 of the petition it has also been alleged that 14 posts of Class-IV employees were lying vacant but the services of the petitioners had not yet, been regularised. After giving the aforesaid notice for demand of justice dated 23rd March, 1990, the present writ petition was filed on 31st March, 1990 On 5th July, 1990 show cause notice was issued by this Court as to why the writ petition may not be admitted/disposed of. After the service was complete the matter came up before the Court on 20th August, 1990 and it was recorded on that date in presence of Shri K.N. Garg, Addl. Govt. Advocate that on 3rd September, 1990 the case will be heard and finally disposed of even if the reply is not filed. On 3rd September, 1990, the case was adjourned to 4th October, 1990 on the request of the counsel for the petitioner and yet the case was again listed before the Court on 6th September, 1990 and, therefore, it was directed that the matter be listed on 4th October, 1990. Thereafter the matter came up before the Court on 10th October, 1990 and on this date the Addl. Govt. Advocate again sought time to file the reply. The time was granted and when the matter again came up before the Court on 17th October, 1990, the time was again sought by the Addl. Govt. Advocate and the matter was posted for 1st November, 1990. On 1st November, 1950 also no reply was filed and the counsel for the petitioner submitted that the matter is covered by a decision of the Supreme Court reported in (1990) 1 S.C.C. 361. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State sought time to study the matter and make his submissions on 22nd November, 1990. Thereafter the matter came up before the Court on 23rd November, 1990 and on this date the case was wrongly listed in the cause list in the category of 'incomplete service' and on that basis time was again sought and the matter was posted for 13th December, 1990. Today Miss Deepa Ajwani, Asstt. Govt. Advocate, appearing on behalf of the respondent has stated that file has not been located in the Govt. Advocate Office. No reply whatsoever has been filed and the allegations of the petitioners remained uncontroverted.;