State Of Haryana v. Surinder Kumar And Others

Factual and Procedural Background

The respondents were appointed as daily-wagers on a contract basis to the post of clerk. They filed writ petitions before the Punjab and Haryana High Court seeking regularisation. In the impugned orders (dated 28-7-1995 and 23-11-1995 in CWPs Nos. 1479 of 1995 and 15828 of 1995), the High Court directed payment of wages on the principle of equal pay for equal work and also directed regularisation of their services.

Appeals by special leave were filed before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court recalled its earlier order dated 2-8-1996, restored the special leave petitions, granted leave, and proceeded to decide the resulting civil appeals.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether daily-wage, contract appointees to clerical posts are entitled to regularisation as directed by the High Court.
2. Whether such contract daily-wage appointees are entitled to wages on the principle of equal pay for equal work at par with regular clerks, and if so, from what point in time.
3. How the guidelines in State of Haryana v. Piara Singh govern consideration of the respondents' cases for appointment/regularisation in accordance with statutory rules.

Arguments of the Parties

Respondents' Arguments

• Counsel for the respondents contended that the posts held by the respondents were interchangeable and that, in fact, they had been interchanged to enable them to hold the posts (seeking to support parity with regular clerks).

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Supreme Court proceeded on the admitted factual premise that the respondents were contract-based daily-wagers appointed to the post of clerk and that the High Court had directed both equal pay and regularisation. The Court held that the controversy was governed by the guidelines laid down in State of Haryana v. Piara Singh, under which appointments to service must be made in accordance with statutory recruitment rules and the applicable guidelines. Consequently, instead of affirming the High Court’s blanket directions, the Court required the appellant to consider the respondents’ cases for appointment in accordance with law and the Piara Singh framework, subject to their eligibility. It further directed that if any respondent had become age-barred, age should be relaxed to the extent of the period they had worked.

On the equal pay aspect, the Court rejected the respondents’ contention that interchangeability of posts (and their alleged interchange in practice) entitled them to the same pay scale as regular clerks. The Court reasoned that contract daily-wage appointees do not acquire a right to a post until they are duly selected and appointed; allowing pay parity based merely on such interchange would undermine the purpose of selection, which is to test eligibility and make recruitment in accordance with prescribed rules. Since the respondents’ recruitment was admittedly not in accordance with the rules, they could not claim the regular clerks’ pay scale by asserting that they discharged similar duties.

The Court also noted that if officers had taken illegal actions after recruitment (apparently facilitating interchangeability), this would amount to grave indiscipline. It directed higher authorities to look into and rectify such actions, take suitable disciplinary action against erring officers, and submit a report on the action taken and its outcome to the Registry of the Court. The Court emphasized that it would not grant legitimacy to illegal acts of officers by granting relief founded on such wrongdoing.

The Court limited equal pay relief by directing that the respondents would be entitled to equal pay on par with regular clerks only from the date of their appointment pursuant to the lawful process contemplated.

Holding and Implications

ALLOWED; HIGH COURT ORDERS SET ASIDE. The Supreme Court allowed the appeals and set aside the High Court’s directions on equal pay and regularisation as granted. However, it issued substituted directions requiring the appellant to consider the respondents for appointment in accordance with law and the guidelines in State of Haryana v. Piara Singh, with age relaxation to the extent of the period worked if they had become age-barred. Upon appointment, they would be entitled to equal pay at par with regular clerks from the date of such appointment.

The direct consequence for the parties is that the respondents did not receive automatic regularisation or immediate pay parity based solely on their contractual daily-wage engagement; their cases were to be considered under the lawful recruitment/regularisation framework. The appellant authorities were required to act expeditiously and to investigate and discipline any officers responsible for illegal post-interchange actions, reporting the outcome to the Court Registry. No costs were awarded. The decision applied existing guidelines and did not state that it was creating any new legal precedent.