- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Sandeep Kumar And Others v. State Of Uttar Pradesh And Others
Factual and Procedural Background
The order disposes of four writ petitions filed under Article 32 of the Constitution by engineers engaged on daily-rated or work-charge basis in different public projects and public-sector undertakings within the State of Uttar Pradesh.
- W.P. No. 533 of 1991 – Five Junior Engineers employed on a slum-clearance project under the Executive Officer, City Board, Ghaziabad, alleged that they received only Rs 1000 per month without paid holidays or additional benefits.
- W.P. Nos. 534 & 766 of 1991 – Degree- and diploma-holder engineers engaged by the U.P. Bridge Corporation on daily wages complained of lower pay (especially diploma holders) and non-consideration for regular appointments.
- W.P. No. 689 of 1991 – Diploma-holder draftsmen and Junior Engineers working on work-charge basis in the U.P. Small Industries Corporation challenged the terms of their engagement and sought regularisation.
All petitions sought parity of pay with regular employees and/or regularisation of service. The Supreme Court heard the matters together and issued a composite order.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether daily-rated/work-charge engineers are entitled to the same monthly remuneration as their counterparts appointed on a regular basis performing identical work.
- Whether the petitioners have a right to be regularised in service and, if not, what directions, if any, should govern future recruitment to permanent posts.
- Whether the denial of paid holidays to daily-rated employees is permissible when wages are fixed on a monthly basis.
Arguments of the Parties
Petitioners' Arguments
- They perform the same duties as regular engineers but receive substantially lower remuneration, violating the principle of equal pay for equal work.
- They rely on this Court’s earlier decisions, including the Ghaziabad Development Authority Engineers case and Dharwad Distt. P.W.D. Literate Daily Wage Employees Association v. State of Karnataka, to contend that long-term daily-rated staff should either be regularised or paid at par with regular employees.
- In the Bridge Corporation matters, they allege that permanent vacancies are being filled through deputation, bypassing eligible in-house daily-rated staff.
Respondents' Arguments
- The engagements are project-specific or work-charge in nature; hence there is no permanent requirement justifying regularisation.
- Lower wages are defended on the ground that daily-rated workers are not paid for holidays when no work is taken.
- For the Bridge Corporation, counsel agreed that future vacancies could normally be filled by regularising existing daily-rated employees, subject to exigencies.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Ghaziabad Development Authority Engineers (citation not specified) | Equal pay for engineers engaged on daily-rated basis performing the same work as regular staff | Cited by petitioners; reinforced the Court’s view that pay discrimination is unjustified |
| Dharwad Distt. P.W.D. Literate Daily Wage Employees Association v. State of Karnataka, (1990) 2 SCC 396 |
Regularisation or equitable treatment of long-term daily-wage employees | Used as guiding authority while framing relief on pay parity and directions regarding future regularisation |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court treated each group of petitions separately but applied a consistent rationale:
- Project-Specific Nature versus Pay Parity: While recognising that the slum-clearance project (W.P. 533/1991) and other work-charge arrangements did not create permanent posts justifying immediate regularisation, the Court found no justification for paying lower wages to engineers doing identical duties. It fixed the monthly remuneration of Junior Engineers at Rs 1400 instead of Rs 1000 and clarified that once wages are paid on a monthly basis, holidays cannot be excluded.
- Bridge Corporation Matters (W.P. 534 & 766/1991):
- Degree-holder engineers were already receiving pay parity; the Court extended the same parity to diploma-holder engineers, directing that they be paid Rs 1400 per month instead of Rs 1280.
- Relying on counsel’s concession, the Court directed that future permanent vacancies “shall ordinarily” be filled by regularising similarly-placed daily-rated employees, limiting the use of deputationists to six months when unavoidable.
- The Court invoked the Minimum Wages Act to underline that a paid day of rest is mandatory within every seven-day period.
- Small Industries Corporation Matter (W.P. 689/1991):
- Given the fluctuating workload and the Corporation’s purpose, the Court declined to order blanket regularisation.
- However, it directed that when permanent vacancies arise, preference be afforded to existing work-charged employees based on seniority, with discretion left to the employer regarding weightage for past service and waiver of age limits.
Holding and Implications
Writ Petitions DISPOSED OF with specific directions:
- W.P. 533/1991: Petitioners to be paid Rs 1400 per month prospectively (from 1 October 1991); they may compete for regular posts through the State Public Service Commission, with continuity of service considered for age-bar relaxation.
- W.P. 534 & 766/1991: Diploma-holder petitioners to receive Rs 1400 per month; future vacancies in U.P. Bridge Corporation ordinarily to be filled by regularising existing daily-rated staff, limiting deputation to six months.
- W.P. 689/1991: No immediate regularisation; preference in recruitment to permanent posts to be given to current work-charged employees.
Although no new legal doctrine was formulated, the order reinforces the principle of equal pay for equal work and provides procedural guidelines to public authorities on future regularisation of long-term daily-rated employees.
Order
Writ Petition No. 533 of 1991
1. Petitioners, five in number, are working as Junior Engineers in a project placed under the control of the Executive Officer, City Board, Ghaziabad. We have been told that the nature of work is essentially slum clearance and the project is financed partly by the State of Uttar Pradesh and partly by World Bank funds. Petitioners have alleged that they are employed on daily rate basis and on an average receive Rs 1000 per month. It is stated that no payment is made for the holidays and they are not entitled to any other benefit for the work done. Reliance has been placed on this Court's decision in the case of Ghaziabad Development Authority Engineers and some other decisions including the one in the case of Dharwad Distt. P.W.D Literate Daily Wage Employees Association v. State of Karnataka (1990) 2 SCC 396, (1990) 12 ATC 902.
2. From the facts placed before us, it appears that the scheme under which the petitioners are working is of a very specific nature. There is no permanent need for the work and since it is a project for a particular purpose, it will not be possible to direct that the petitioners may be regularised in service. From the materials, however, it appears that similarly qualified engineers when employed for the work which the petitioners are called upon to do, on regular basis are paid a minimum grade pay of Rs 1400. We see no justification to discriminate between the petitioners and the regularly employed Junior Engineers who on appointment receive Rs 1400. Accordingly, we direct that the petitioners shall be paid a sum of Rs 1400 per month instead of Rs 1000 as at present and since the pay shall be for the month, the question of holidays will not be taken into account.
3. We further clarify that petitioners are entitled to regularisation of their service by recruitment through the State Public Service Commission for vacancies other than employment under the project and as and when such vacancies arise and are duly notified the claim of the petitioners be considered for appointment subject to their satisfying the requisite qualifications prescribed therefor under the rules and the employer would not stand in the way of regularisation of their service. It is open to the State Public Service Commission to consider if any weightage would be available to them for their service but we make no direction. Continuity of service of the petitioners may be taken into account for overcoming the age bar as directed in similar cases. Mr Rana has agreed that this will be given effect to from October 1, 1991.
4. Writ petition is disposed of. No costs.
Writ Petition Nos. 534 and 766 of 1991
5. Some of the petitioners in these applications under Article 32 of the Constitution are degree holders in Engineering and are designated as Assistant Engineers while the others are diploma holders in Engineering and are designated as Junior Engineers. They are employed on daily rated basis under the U.P Bridge Corporation — respondent 3 which is a public sector undertaking of the State of Uttar Pradesh. The main dispute canvassed in these writ petitions is twofold: (1) regarding the appropriate salary for the work done; and (2) regularisation of service. From the papers placed before us and submissions advanced at the bar we find that the regular employees are being paid at the rate of Rs 1400 for diploma holders and Rs 1800 for degree holders whereas the petitioners who are employed on casual basis are being paid at the rate of Rs 1800 (for degree holders) and Rs 1280 (for diploma holders). The distinction maintained has been explained by saying that since they are not regular employees no payment is being made for the holidays when no work is taken. It is difficult to accept this contention. The petitioner-degree holders are paid at the same rate as the regular degree holders. There is no reason to make distinction between petitioner-diploma holders and the regular diploma holders. Besides even under the Minimum Wages Act a paid day of rest in every period of seven days is mandatory. The diploma degree holders among the petitioners should therefore be paid Rs 1400 p.m
6. So far as regularisation is concerned it is the stand of the petitioners that even when vacancies occur, those are being filled up by receiving employees from the regular establishments of the State of Uttar Pradesh on deputation thereby overlooking the claims of employees under the Corporation. Counsel for the Corporation has agreed, and we must accept the position that his agreement is justified, that all such vacancies which would occur henceforth shall ordinarily be filled up by regularising the employees like the petitioners who are directly employed by the Corporation and as and when that is not possible for some reason, on temporary basis deputationists may be accepted so as to ensure that no deputationist functions for more than six months. Persons already on deputation are not intended to be covered by this order. As and when the Corporation suggests to government for filling up of the vacancies, we suggest that government may consider the request favourably and with a sense of immediacy.
7. The writ petitions are disposed of. No order for costs.
Writ Petition No. 689 of 1991
8. Petitioners in this application under Article 32 of the Constitution are diploma holders in Engineering and two of them are employed as draftsmen and the others as Junior Engineers. They are employed under respondent 3 — U.P Small Industries Corporation Ltd., a government company set up for the purpose of providing aid and assistance to small scale industries within the State of Uttar Pradesh.
9. Petitioners have challenged the terms of their employment which are said to be daily rated and there is no dispute that they are in work-charge employment.
10. We have heard counsel for the parties. Keeping the purpose of the Corporation — respondent 3 and the nature of work available under it in view, it is difficult to say that the petitioners could be regularised. The only direction which can be given is as and when any vacancy of permanent nature occurs preference for regularisation may be offered to the work-charged employees including the petitioners on the basis of their seniority and entitlement according to rules. It is open to the employer to consider the feasibility of giving weightage of past service and condonation of age bar as they are already in service.
11. The writ petition is disposed of. No order for costs.
Alert