JAIN, J. - (1.) BY this writ petition, the petitioner seeks a direction to be issued to the respondents to regularise his services on the post of Driver w. e. f. his date of appointment. In the alternative it has been prayed that the respondents may be directed to grant the petitioner at least minimum of regular pay scale of Driver, or he may be declared semi permanent w. e. f. date when he completed 2 years of service with all consequential benefits.
(2.) MR. Choudhary, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was initially appointed as a work- charged daily rated helper w. e. f. 1. 10. 1987 and continued as such till 8. 4. 1990. He has submitted that vide order dated 9. 4. 1990 (Anx. 2), the petitioner was appointed as Driver on daily wages @@rs. 25/- for three months and since then the petitioner is working as Driver but neither the petitioner has been regularised nor he has been paid minimum of regular pay scale. Therefore, the respondents may be directed to regularise the petitioner on the post of Driver or minimum of regular pay scale of Driver may be ordered to be paid. He has placed reliance on Prem Ratan vs. The Rajasthan Cooperative Dairy Fed. (1), Harphool Chand vs. University of Raj. (2), Bala Ram Sharma vs. State (S. B. C. W. Petition No. 5305/94) decided on 26. 5. 1995, Bhagwan Dass & Ors. vs. State of Haryana (3), Daily Rated Casual Labour Employed under P&t Department vs. Union of India (4), Himmat Singh vs. State of Rajasthan (5), State of Raj. vs. Vishan Das (D. B. C. Special Appeal No. 196/1992) decided on 12. 5. 1993 and Vinod Kumar vs. State Mr. Jasmatia, learned Additional Advocate General has not disputed the principle enunciated in the above case law but urges that they are not applicable to the facts of present case in view of the decision of their lordships of the Supreme Court rendered in Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad, U. P. vs. Anil Kumar Mishra He has also submitted that the petitioner's services cannot be regularised in the absence of sanctioned regular post of Driver and budgetory provision in the yearly budget. However, he submits that as and when regular post of Driver is available with the respondents, the case of the petitioner will be considered according to his seniority in the cadre. I have heard learned counse l for the parties and perused the material on record as well as the case law cited at the Bar. In Madhyamik Siksha Parishad's case (supra), their lordships of the Supreme Court while reversing the order of the High Court has held that workers only on temporary assignment and working on unsanctioned posts, have no right of regularisation. That apart, their lordships has repelled the argument and held that the analogy of completion of 240 day's work as envisaged in the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 cannot be applied, and imported in an extended or enlarged form where the assignment is ad-hoc and no sanctioned post is in existence as it merely impose certain obligations on the employer at the time of termination of service. In the case in hand admittedly the petitioner was appointed on ad-hoc basis as a work-charged employee and thereafter he was appointed as Driver for three months on 9. 4. 1990 and he is being paid the daily wages accordingly. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to be considered for semi-permanent status provided he has completed two years service as Driver under work charged rules and his service record is satisfactory. So far as the prayer for issuing direction to regularise the services of the petitioner is concerned, the same cannot be issued as nothing has been placed on record to show that he was appointed as Driver against a sanctioned post and admittedly as per reply, there is no regular sanctioned post of Driver available with the respondents which has not been controverted by the petitioner. In view of this, no direction can be issued to the respondents to regularise the petitioners' services on the post of Driver. The cases cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner are not helpful to the facts of present case. Reference may also be made to the decision reported in (1992) 4 SCC 33 (8) & (1992) 4 SCC-118
(3.) SO far as argument of equal pay for equal work is concerned, it is no doubt true that one can claim equal pay for equal work but it depends upon the nature of work and the responsibility. Each case depends upon the facts of its own. In the instant case, though the petitioner was appointed as work charged employee as a Driver and performing duties but as stated he is not appointed on a sanctioned post and immuned from any rigour of disciplinary action & responsibility. Thus, the contention of the counsel for the petitioner regarding equal pay for equal work cannot be accepted. As regards the point of discrimination with one Nasir Khan who is given regular pay scale is concerned, Mr. Jasmatia has submitted that Nisar Khan was given regular pay scale on the basis of the order of the High Court and once the petitioner is declared semi permanent he will also be entitled to get the same benefit as per Anex. 8. In view of this, the ground of discrimination is also not tenable. Accordingly, the respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for giving him semi-permanent status on the post of Driver as observed above. The writ petition stands disposed of. .;