- (1.) HEARD counsel for the parties.
(2.) THESE petitioners had come before this court inter-alia claiming regularization of their services in Class-IV under the respondent Minor Irrigation Department at Dumka Division. Petitioners had also sought for release of arrears of their current salary as well as arrears of salary on the basis of principle of "Equal Pay for Equal Work" which was being paid to other employees posted in the district of Godda. Counsel for the petitioners submits that these petitioners were appointed in Class-IV post under the Minor Irrigation Department sometimes in the year 1978-81 and have been discharging their duties to the satisfaction of all concerned. Gradation list giving their details were also prepared which is enclosed as Annexure- 2 & 1 respectively in the two writ petitions where names of the petitioners are also shown at different serial numbers. Petitioners have relied upon the instances of other work charge employees who have been regularized by the respondent department while they had not yet been regularized, though during the pendency of these writ petitions, respondents were directed to pay minimum wages to the petitioners.
(3.) COUNSEL for the petitioners informs that during the pendency of this writ application, these petitioners have been regularized in service in Class-IV grade under the respondent department at Dumka vide order contained in Memo No. 192 dated 16th March 2011. It is stated that however, during the pendency of the writ applications, some of the petitioners had retired also and one of them has been substituted by her widow. Counsel for the petitioners therefore submits that pursuant to the order of regularization, petitioners who are still in service, are getting their current salary, but arrears are due on account of minimum wages for the period September 2007 to 16th March 2011 i.e. the date of their regularization. Counsel for the petitioners submits that vide annexure-11, there are instances of such employees posted in Godda district where they have been paid minimum wages as per law. Counsel for the petitioners therefore submits that for the only remaining grievances, petitioners may be allowed to approach the concerned respondent who may be directed to grant them similar benefits. Counsel for the petitioners however also submits that even prior to the year 2007, these petitioners were not being paid minimum wages and for which they had also made a claim.;