Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
N. Sanjeevaiah And Ors. vs Andhra Pradesh Agricultural ... on 24 October, 1997
Equivalent citations: 1998(1)ALD324, 1998(1)ALT436
Author: P. Venkatarama Reddi
Bench: P. Venkatarama Reddi
ORDER P. Venkatarama Reddi, J.
1. The petitioners who are casual labour engaged in Agricultural and Fruit Research Stations under the Control of A.P.Agricultural University have filed these Writ Petitions seeking for a direction to regularise their services. Though in Writ Petition No.3780 of 1988, the petitioners seek a further relief to promote them as Field Supervisors, this part of the prayer is not pressed before us.
2. In each of the cases, the respondents have furnished particulars regarding the number of days they worked during the period 1983 to 1995.
3. There are four petitioners in Writ Petition No.3780 of 1988. They were engaged as casual labour during the years 1983 and 1984 in Fruit Research Station at Sangareddy. They have the qualification of SSC. On the date of filing the Writ Petition, they were working as skilled farm-labour and they continue to work in that capacity till now. Except in the first year, right from 1984, petitioners 1, 2 and 4 worked for not less than 278 days in a year. On the average, these petitioners worked for about 300 days in a year. The third petitioner put in service of not less than 250 days, except during the years 1990 and 1994 when he worked for 211 days and 197 days respectively. They are getting wages at the rate of Rs.60/- per day.
4. InW.P.No.16134of 1988, thereare two petitioners. They were engaged as casual labour on daily wages in the year 1983 in the Agricultural Research Station, Amberpet. The first petitioner was being utilised as Tractor Cleaner and at times as Driver. Between 1983 and 1995 he had put in service ranging between 193 to 346 days. The 2nd petitioner's services were being utilised as Watchman. Between 1983 and 1995, he worked for 163 to 326 days. According to the respondents, they do not have any educational qualifications.
5. In W.P.No. 16169 of 1988, there are 11 petitioners. These women casual labour were engaged or continuing to work in Agricultural Research Institute, Rajendranagar. The 6th petitioner died. Hence the Writ Petition has abated as far as the 6th petitioner is concerned. Petitioners 1, 2, and 3 were absorbed on regular basis in Class IV posts as Agricultural Work-women and as Attender in the years 1991 and 1995. The Writ Petition as far as they are concerned has become infructuous as they have secured the relief Though it is mentioned in the tabular statement furnished by the Registrar of the University that the 8th petitioner Smt. S. Rukkamma is 'not on rolls', it is stated in the original counter-affidavit filed in April, 1989 that the 10th petitioner had been working since 1-10-1968. The tabular statement was furnished in April, 1997. Probably, during this interrugnum, she ceased to be in the employment. The learned Counsel for the petitioner is not in a position to refute the version of the respondent that she left the service. Hence, no relief can be granted to her. Therefore, the Writ Petition survives as far as the petitioners 4, 5, 7 to 9 and 11 are concerned. These petitioners were engaged during the years 1965, 1966 and 1968 and they have continued to work every year till now as unsilled casual labour on the farms. They are being paid wages at Rs.44.50 per day. The particulars of the number of days they worked from 1983 onwards are furnished by the Senior Scientist, Horticulture. Though during the years 1983 to 1985, they worked for 150 to 242 days, from 1986 onwards, they worked for more number of days. Excepting the 5th petitioner, others worked for more than 300 days in several years. The working days of the 5th petitioner from 1980 onwards range between 183 and 264 days. There is no information about their educational qualifications, if any.
6. It is the contention of the petitioners that by virtue of their continuous and long standing service, they should be absorbed in the permanent establishment on regular basis with pay-scales or in the alternative the petitioners submit that they should be paid on par with regular employees doing the same kind of job on the principle of 'equal pay for equal work'. It is contended that almost throughout the year, they have been working as casual labour for more than 12 years and it is, therefore, a fit case for extending the benefit of regularisation with regular pay scales. On the other hand, it is contended by the respondents that the petitioners who are engaged to do seasonal works cannot be compared to regular employees and that they will be eligible for appointment to Class-IV posts on regular basis as and when vacancies arise as per their seniority subject to the qualifications and criteria laid down in the Regulations framed by the University in 1982. In the additional counter-affidavit filed in July, 1996, after the Writ Petitions came up for hearing, it is stated that the prior approval of the Government is necessary under Section 35(B) of A.P. Agricultural University Act for the creation of additional posts and for regularisation of services of casual labour beyond the limit of vacancies available and the University has already addressed the Government for sanction of necessary posts. It is then stated that soon after the posts are sanctioned, the University will absorb the casual labourers as per the seniority, stability and rule of reservation.
7. We ordered notice suo motu to the Secretary to Government. Food and Agriculture and Finance Departments. The Joint Secretary to Government, Agriculture and Co-operation Department filed a Counter-affidavit on 17-9-1996. It is stated in the counter that the A.P. Agricultural University by the letter dated 10-7-1987 requested the Government to create 986 Class-IV posts for regularising the casual labourers who were being employed by the University for periods ranging from 5 to 25 years. The matter was examined and the request was negatived by the Government on 18-11-1987. The same was reiterated in the Government's D.O. letter dated 8-11-1990. It is further stated that the University again sent up proposals on 8-12-1995 and 4-6-1996 for creation of 2795 posts in the Class IV category. The Government having examined the matter felt that it was not feasible to create so many number of last grade posts. Accordingly, orders were issued on 6-9-1996 after consulting the Finance Department rejecting the proposal.
8. That the Government has approached the matter in a light and casual manner is evident from the following averments in the counter:
"This problem is a limitless problem as future contingent workers for sundry field works will also have to be regularised in the last grade posts after some time, so this will be a problem in perpetuity; therefore, the only course of action is to discharge them taking recourse to I.D. Act."
The Government gave a short shift to the entire issue forgetting the fact that it is a human problem and the casual labour who have been working for more than a decade during and beyond the seasons cannot be dealt with so lightly by the Government which is supposed to be a model employer. The constitutional obligation stressed in various decisions of the Supreme Court obliging the State to regularise the services of casual labour who have put in long years of service and to provide 'equal pay for equal work' was obviously given a go-bye.
9. The ultimate stand taken by the Government is reflected in the following statement:
"If at all the A.P. Agricultural University has to regularise the services of casual workers, they have to regularise their services as per their seniority and within the existing strength whenever the vacancies arise."
10. Before we proceed further, we may refer to the A.P. Agricultural University Last-Grade Service Regulations framed by the University in the year 1982. Agricultural workmen, Gardeners, Malis and Malans etc. are included in Group III. Attenders, Watchmen, Sweepers, Labs-Ward boys etc. are included in Group I, Animal attendants etc. in Group II, Cleaners in Group IV, Khalasis in Group VI etc. Regulation No.5 provides for appointments to the various categories of posts mentioned in Groups 1 to 7 has to be made by the following two modes:
(a) 50% of the vacancies to be filled up by promotion of persons holding the posts of permanent Mazdoors/contingent employees within the Unit.
(b) The remaining 50% of the vacancies to be filled up by appointing suitable persons from the casual labourers already employed as such within the Unit in accordance with seniority and subject to rules of reservation.
11. It is stated by the Registrar of the University along with furnished service particulars in Writ Petition No.16134 of 1988 that all the permanent Mazdoors of consolidated pay were absorbed in Last Grade service in the year 1982 based on the orders issued by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.38, dated 1-2-1980. It is also stated that there are no more permanent Mazdoors and, therefore, the casual labourers engaged in the farms alone are being considered for appointment in the posts in Last-Grade service whenever vacancies arise in the Unit concerned.
12. The proviso to Regn. 6 provides for relaxation of age limit (which is normally 28 years subject to relaxation in the cases of SCs, STs and BCs) upto 10 years by deducting the number of years completed by the casual labourer. Regn. 7 lays down that for appointments other than to Group V (Helpers and Lascars), reading and writing in any of the regional languages is sufficient qualification. The proviso says that in the case of a person who is already working as permanent Mazdoor or casual labour on the date of the commencement of Regulations, the said qualification need not be insisted upon. For appointment to a Group II or III post, it is sufficient if he or she has experience of 2 years in the work connected with the post. At present, it is only within the frame work of these regulations the casual labourers are being absorbed in Last Grade Service with regular pay-scales. But, as the vacancies that arise within the existing cadre-strength are limited, the University is not in a position to absorb the petitioners though by all objective standards, they have put in sufficiently long service as casual labourers so as to entertain a legitimate hope for regularisation As pointed out by the learned Counsel for the University, the Additional posts have to be created with the sanction of the Government as the Government has to meet the additional financial commitment. The University's request in this regard, as already seen, was negatived by the Government with a fore closed mind and in a peremptory tone.
13. Though it is contended in Writ Petition Nos. 16169 and 16134 of 1988 that juniors to the petitioners were absorbed on regular basis, it is denied in the counter and it is clarified that seniority and reservations are being followed. Unless additional posts are created, most of the petitioners cannot hope to get regular appointments in the near future.
14. The stand taken by the respondents and the cloud of uncertainity casts on the application of principle of equal pay for equal work by some of the recent decisions of Supreme Court impel us to survey the case-law so as to understand the true ratio of the principle and its applicability to the factual setting of the present cases. The issue of regularisation, we shall deal with in the last.
15. The Principle of 'Equal pay for equal work' which was at one point of time considered as an abstract doctrine not falling within the purview of Article 14 was given its flesh and blood in 1982 in Randhir Singh 's case. Chinnappa Reddy, J, speaking for the three Judge Bench of Supreme Court raised it to the level of an enforceable constitutional right. From then onwards, the law marched forward and the principle found its echo in various decisions of the Supreme Court upto the year 1990. In implementation of this principle, the Supreme Court gave suitable directions of immediate impact to provide succour to casual labour of longstanding.
16. We may first notice the passages in some of the judgments explaining the nature, source and content of the right.
17. The Randhir Singh v. Union of India, it was pointed out and observed:
"It is true that the principle of equal pay for equal work' is not expressly declared by our Constitution to be a fundamental right. But it certainly is a Constitutional goal. Article 39(d) of the Constitution proclaims 'equal pay for equal work for both men and women' as a Directive Principle of State Policy..... Directive Principles, as has been pointed out in some of the Judgments of this Court have to be read into the fundamental right as a matter of interpretation."
After referring to Articles 14 and 16, the learned Judge observed:
"..... These quality clauses of the Constitution must mean something to everyone. To the vast majority of the people, the equality clauses of the Constitution would mean nothing if they are unconcerned with the work they do and the pay they get. To them the equality clauses will have some substance if equal work means equal pay..... Questions concerning wages and the like, mundane they may be, are yet matters of vital concern to them and it is there, if at all that the equality clauses of the Constitution have any significance to them. The preamble to the Constitution declares the solemn resolution of the people in India to constitute India into a Sovereign Socialist Democractic Republic. Again the word 'Socialist' must mean something. Even if it does not mean 'to each according to his need', it must be least 'equal pay for equal work....."
The Supreme Court concluded:
"..... Construing Articles 14 and 16 in the light of the preamble and Article 39(d), we are of the view that the principle 'Equal pay for Equal work' is deducible from those Articles and may be properly applied to cases of unequal scales of pay based on no classification or irrational classification though those drawing the different scales of pay do identical work under the same employer.'' In Dhirendra Chamoli v. State of Uttar Pradesh, Bhagwati, J. observed:
"..... This Article (Article 14) declares that there shall be equality before law and equal protection of the law and implicit in it is the further principle that there must be equal pay for equal work......"
The Supreme Court negatived the plea that Nehru Yuvak Kendras, being temporary organisations and the employees not being appointed against sanctioned posts of Class IV the principle has no application, in the following words:
"These employees who are in the service of the different Nehru Yuvak Kendras in the Country and who are admittedly performing the same duties as Class IV employees, must therefore get the same salary and conditions of service as Class IV employees. It makes no difference whether they are appointed in sanctioned posts or not. So long as they are performing the same duties, they must receive the same salary and conditions of service as Class IV employees."
We have particularly referred to the observations touching the absence of sanctioned posts because a different note was struck in some of the recent cases which we shall refer to later.
18. In Surinder Singh v. Engineer-in-Chief C.P.W.D., the petitioners were casual labourers engaged in CPWD on daily wage basis for several years. Their contention was that even if it was not possible to employ them on regular basis for want of suitable number of posts, there was no reason whatsoever for denying them "equal pay for equal work". Chinnappa Reddy, J. speaking for the Supreme Court minced no words to re-state the Doctrine of 'equal pay for equal work'. The learned Judge observed:
"One would have thought that the Judgment in the Nehru Yuvak Kendras case, concluded further argument on the question. However, Shri V.C. Mahajan, learned Counsel for the Central Government reiterated the same argument and also contended that the doctrine of 'equal pay for equal work' was a mere abstract doctrine and that it was not capable of being enforced in a Court of law. He referred us to the observations of this Court in Kishori Mohanlal Bakshi v. Union of India, . We are not a little surprised that such an argument should be advanced on behalf of the Central Government 36 years after the passing of the Constitution and 11 years after the Forty-second Amendment proclaiming India as a socialist republic. The Central Government like all organs of the State is committed to the Directive Principles of State Policy and Article 39 enshrines the principle of equal pay for equal work. In Randhir Singh v. Union of India, , this Court had occasion to explain the observations in Kishori Mohanlal Bakshi v. Union of India, and to point out how the principle of equal pay for equal work is not an abstract doctrine and how it is a vital and vigorous doctrine accepted throughout the world, particularly by all socialist countries. For the benefit of those who do not seem to be aware of it, we may point out that the decision in Randhir Singh case has been followed in any number of cases by this Court and has been affirmed by a Constitution Bench of this Court in D.S. Nakara v. Union of India, . The Central Government, the State Governments and likewise, all public sector undertakings are expected to function like model and enlightened employers and arguments such as those which were advanced before us that the principle of equal pay for equal work is an abstract doctrine which cannot be enforced in a Court of law should ill come from the mouths of the State and the State undertakings....."
19. In Daily Rated Casual Labour, P&T Department v. Union of India, 'the twin aspects of equal pay for equal work' and regularisalion of casual service were dealt with. As regards equal wages, the Supreme Court made the following pertinent observations:
"It may be true that the petitioners have not been regularly recruited but many of them have been working continuously for more than a year in the Department and some of them have been engaged as casual labourers for nearly ten years. They are rendering the same kind of service which is being rendered by the regular employees doing the same type of work"
20. After referring to Clause 2 of the Article 38, it was observed:
"Even though the above directive principle may not be enforceable as such by virtue of Article 37 of the Constitution of India, it may be relied upon by the petitioners to show that in the instant case they have been subjected to hostile discrimination. It is urged that the State cannot deny atleast the minimum pay in the pay scales of regularly employed workmen even though the Government may not be compelled to extend all the benefits enjoyed by regularly recruited employees. We are of the view that such denial amounts to exploitation of labour. The Government cannot take advantage of its dominant position, and compel any worker to work even as a casual labourer on starvation wages. It may be that the casual labourer has agreed to work on such low wages. That he has done because he has no other choice. It is poverty that has driven him to that State. The Government should be a model employer. We are of the view that on the facts and in the circumstances of this case, the classification of employees into regularly recruited employees and casual employees for the purpose of paying less than the minimum pay payable to employees in the corresponding regular cadres particularly in the lowest rungs of the department, where the pay scales are the lowest is not tenable....."
21. In Jai pal v. State of Haryana, wherein the disparity in pay of the Instructors working under Adult and non-formal Education Scheme and the squad teachers employed under the Social Education Scheme formulated by the State of Haryana was the subject-matter of complaint, the Supreme Court after referring to Article 39 of the Constitution, observed:
"The purpose of the Article is to fix certain social and economic goals for avoiding any discrimination amongst the people doing similar work in matters relating to pay. The doctrine of equal pay for equal work has been implemented by this Court in Randhir Singh v. Union of India, , Dhirendra Chamoli v. State of U.P., and Surinder Singh v. Engineer-in-Chief, CPWD, . In view of these authorities it is too late in the day to disregard the doctrine of equal pay for equal work on the ground of the employment being temporary and the other being permanent in nature. A temporary or casual employee performing the same duties and functions is entitled to the same pay as paid to a permanent employee."
22. The argument that mode of recruitment and transferability of squad teachers made a difference in regard to the application of principle - equal pay for equal work' was repelled, following the decision in Bhagwan Dass v. State of Haryana,
23. In Bhagwan Dass case (supra), it was observed by Thakkar, J.:
"Once the nature and functions and the work of two persons are not shown to be dissimilar, the fact that the recruitment was made in one way or the other would hardly be relevant from the point of view of equal pay for equal work' doctrine..."
The argument that the petitioner therein were employed under a temporary scheme and, therefore, the principle cannot be invoked by them was-also negatived in the following words:
"Lastly we have to deal with the contention that the Scheme is a temporary Scheme and the posts are sanctioned on an year to year basis having regard to the temporary nature of the scheme. We are unable to comprehend how this factor can be invoked for violating 'equal pay for equal work' doctrine. Whether appointments are for temporary periods and the Schemes are temporary in nature is irrelevant once it is shown that the nature of the duties and functions discharged and the work done is similar and the doctrine of 'equal pay for equal work' is attracted."
24. We are referring to these observations in particular as the view taken in some of the later decisions sounds differently, we will refer to them later.
25. In State of Uttar Pradesh v. J.P. Chourasiya, AIR 1989 SC 19 the Supreme Court while reiterating that 'equal pay for equal work' has been accepted as constitutional and capable of being achieved through constitutional remedies, observed:
"Article 39(d) of the Constitution proclaims 'equal pay for equal work'. This Article and other like provisions in the Directive Principles are conscience of our Constitution. They are rooted in social justice."
However, a note of caution was administered in the following terms:
"This principle has no mechanical application in every case of similar work. It has to be read into Article 14 of the Constitution. Article 14 permits reasonable qualification founded on different basis."
26. In Harbanslal v. State of Himachal Pradesh, the same learned Judge-Jagannadha Shetty, J. speaking for the Supreme Court dwelt at length on the limitations inherent in the doctrine of 'equal pay for equal work' in the following words:
"The principle of equal pay for equal work' is not one of the fundamental rights expressly guaranteed by our Constitution. The principle was incorporated only under Article 39(d) of the Constitution as a Directive Principle of State Policy. Perhaps for the first time, this Court in Randhir singh v. Union of India, has innovated that it is a constitutional goal capable of being achieved through constitutional remedies. There the Court pointed out that that principle has to be read into Article 14 of the Constitution.....
In the immediate aftermath of the decision in Randhir Singh's case (supra) there were bumper cased filed in this Court for enforcemenl of the right to 'equal pay for equal work', perhaps little realising the inbuilt restrictions in that principle.''
27. In Harbans Lal 's case (supra), the Supreme Court declined to apply the principle to the daily wage carpenters employed in a Corporation so as to provide parity in pay with the Carpenters employed in regular government service. It was pointed out that the discrimination complained of must be within the same establishment owned by the same Management. Secondly, it was pointed out that it is difficult to come to the conclusion that every Carpenter or Craftsman was equal to the other in the performance of his work. "It requires the consideration of various dimensions of the job" which must be left to be evaluated and determined by an expert body.
28. After reviewing various decisions of Supreme Court on the subject, Ranganath Mishra, J. speaking for Supreme Court in Dharwad P. W.D. Employees Association v. State of Karnataka, observed:
"We have referred to several precedents all rendered within the current decade - to emphasise upon the feature that equal pay for equal work and providing security for service by regularising casual employment within a reasonable period have been unanimously accepted by this Court as a Constitutional goal to our socialistic polity. Article 141 of the Constitution provides how the decisions of this Court are to be treated and we do not think there is any need to remind the instrumentalities of the State-be it of the Centre or the State, or the public sector-that the Constitution makers wanted them to be bound by what this Court said by way of interpreting the law.''
29. The next decision in which the genesis and scope of the principle was stated is in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh v. Pramod Bhartiya, decided by a three Judge Bench. Jeevan Reddy, J. observed:
"Equal pay for equal work, it is self-evident, is implicit in the doctrine of equality enshrined in Article 14, it flows from it. Because clause (d), Article 39 spoke of equal pay for equal work for both men and women' it did not cease to be a part of Article 14. To say that the said rule having been stated as a directive principle of State policy is not enforceable in a Court of Law is to indulge in sophistry. Parts IV and III of the Constitution are not supposed to be exclusionary of each other. They are complementary to each other. The rule is as much a part of Article 14 as it is of clause (1) of Article 16.. Equality of opportunity guaranteed by Article 16(1) necessarily means and involves equal pay for equal work. It means equally that it is neither a mechanical rule nor does it, mean geometrical equality. The concept of reasonable classification and all other rules evolved with respect to Articles 14 and 16(1) come into play wherever complaint of infraction of that rule falls for consideration."
It was further observed:
"..... It is not enough to say that the qualification are same nor is it enough to say that the schools are of the same status. It is also not sufficient to say that the service conditions are similar. What is more important and crucial is whether they discharge similar duties, functions and responsibilities. On this score there is a noticeable absence of material....."
30. On a conspectus of the various decisions of the Supreme Court, it is seen that between the years 1986 and 1988, the Supreme Court in furtherance of the principle of 'Equal pay for Equal work', issued directions of the payment of wages to the casual labourers working in Government Departments or Public undertakings on par with regular employees during the same kind of jobs. In Dhirendra Chamoli case (supra), the directions was to give salary and allowances of Class-IV employees to the daily wage casual workers employed in Nehru Yuvak Kendras with effect from the date of their employment. The same relief Was granted to the daily wage employees of Central Public Works Department vide, Surinder Singh case (supra). In the Daily Rated Casual labour case (supra), the Supreme Court directed the Union of India to pay wags to the casual labourers working in P & T Department at the rates equivalent to the minimum in the pay scales of regularly employed workers in the corresponding cadres, including D. A. but not increments. The benefit was directed to be extended from the date of filing the writ petition. The same relief was granted to the contingent paid staff of the Income Tax Department doing the work of Class-IV employees in Uttar Pradesh Income Tax Contingent Paid Staff Association v. Union of India, 1987 Supp SCC 658. Again, the following the Daily Rated Casual Labour case (supra) the Supreme Court granted similar relief to the monthly rated Gangmen employed in P.W.D. Karnataka State vide the order dated 14-7-1988 in W.P.No.8307 of 1983 etc. referred to in . The last in the series of the cases is Jaipal v. State of Haryana, (supra) in which the Supreme Court directed that the salary of the Instructors working under the Adult Education Scheme on consolidated pay be raised to the level of Squad teachers employed in State of Haryana under the Social Education Scheme. The benefit was directed to be given from the date of initial appointment.
31. As far as this Court is concerned, we may refer to a recent decision in KM. T. Limited v. M. Chandrasekhar and others, 1996 Lab. I.C. 1368 wherein" relief was granted to the casual labour employed in a public sector undertaking invoking the principle of equal pay for equal work. The Bench consisting of P.S. Mishra, CJ and Sudcrshan Reddy, J. observed:
"The law thus, which has taken a firm root in the country is that 'equal pay for equal work' is a right flowing from the principle of equal protection of law and equality before law as in Article 14 of the Constitution and the crucial test is whether they discharge similar duties, functions and responsibilities."
It was further observed "...... Law which has been made for protecting individuals and community from being exploited by others is expected to be followed not as a ritual but as a faith, if not by all employers, atleast by the employers who satisfy the definition of a State under Article 12 of the Constitution of India"
32. The pace with which the doctrine of 'equal pay for equal work' was applied and regularisation of casual/ad hoc employees was directed has slowed down considerably since the beginning of this decade as the trend of the decisions of the Supreme Court starling with Harbanslal case (supra) reveals. Let us now take stock of these decisions.
33. We have already referred to Harbanslal case (supra) decided in 1989. The daily wage carpenters employed in Himachal Pradesh State Handicraft Corporation sought for payment of wages on par with regularly employed carpenters in Government Service. The claim was very rightly rejected by the Supreme Court, mainly on the ground that in order to enforce the right to equal pay for equal work, the discrimination must be within the same establishment by the same master and the employees or a Government Company cannot claim wages drawn by their counterparts in government service. It was an undisputed fact that there was no regular employees in the Corporation. This reasoning is perfectly understandable. However, the second reason given by their lordships gives rise to some difficulty in comprehending the parameters of the concept. Though, from the pleadings or the facts brought on record, it does not appear that there was a qualitative difference in the nature of work done, their lordships observed that:
"It is not just a comparison of physical activity. It requires the consideration of various dimensions of the job. The accuracy required by the job and dexterity it entails may differ from job to job. It cannot be evaluated by the, mere averments in the self-serving affidavits or counter-affidavits. It must be left to be evaluated and determined by expert body.''
34. Probably, we have to understand these observations in the light of the undeniable fact that the village artisans and craftsmen trained and employed by the Corporation on specific works need not possess any qualifications as the carpenters in regular government service and the latter category of carpenters have perhaps better proficiency in the skilled jobs which they are expected to perform. The above decision was cited with approval in State of Haryana v. Jasmer Singh, 1997 (1) Supreme 137 decided recently.
35. The next judgment of importance which laid down an important exception to the principle of 'equal pay for equal work' is the decision in Delhi Development Horticulture Employees Union v. Delhi Administration Delhi, . The Bench consisting of P.B.Sawant and Jeevan Reddy, JJ. ruled out the guarantee of equal pay for equal work and security of tenure for casual employees engaged in temporary or time-bound schemes. The petitioners before the Supreme Court were engaged by DRDA as casual labourers on daily wages for the purpose of implementation of Jawahar Rozgar Yojna schemes. They sought for the twin reliefs of absorption as regular employees in Delhi Administration and payment of differential wages on par with regular employees. Both these reliefs were negatived by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held that having regard to the very nature of the scheme under which the petitioners were engaged, either regularisation or payment of higher wages was not feasible. It was observed:
"The Yojna has not and cannot have by its very nature any sanctioned strength of posts or workers..... The works by their very nature had to be undertaken on daily-wage basis and as soon as the works at particular sites were over, the workers were required to be shifted to other sites.....
In the circumstances, by the very nature of things neither the DRDA nor the panchayats could be asked either to ensure work to the petitioners every day or to regularise them. There was no scope for regularisation since there were no sanctioned posts or the sanctioned strength of workers."
The following pertinent observations were then made:
"To get an employment under such scheme and to claim on the basis of the said employment, a right to regularisation, is to frustrate the scheme itself. No Court can be a party to such exercise. It is wrong to approach the problems of those employed under such schemes with a view to providing them with full employment and guaranteeing equal pay for equal work. These concepts, in the context of such schemes are both unwarranted and misplaced."
36. Referring to Articles 21 and 41 of the Constitution Sawant, J. observed:
"This country has so far not found it feasible to incorporate the right to livelihood as a fundamental right in the Constitution. This is because the country has so far not attained the capacity to guarantee it, and not because it considers it anytheless fundamental to life. Advisedly, therefore, it has been placed in the chapter on Directive Principles."
37. Relying on the observations in the above case, the Bench consisting of Kuldip Singh and Saghir Ahmad, JJ. declined to apply the principle of equal pay for equal work in State of West Bengal v. Monirujjaman Mullick, 1996 (5) Supreme 693. The Instructors in Non-Formal Education Centres in the State of West Bengal filed writ petition seeking for a direction to extend them the benefit of same scales of pay as were admissible to the Primary School Teachers. The High Court was of the view that the duties and responsibilites of teachers of formal and non-formal education were alike and therefore they should be paid the same salary. However, the claim for absorption as regular teachers was rejected. This judgment of Calcutta High Court was reversed by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court pointed out that the non-formal education centres set up under a scheme framed by the Central Government cannot be equated with primary schools regularly run by the Education Department of the State. It was observed that the method of appointment, source of recruitment, method and hours of teaching were also different. Therefore, it was held that "the High Court fell into patent error in applying the principle of 'equal pay for equal work'."
38. The aforementioned three decisions - Harbanslal, Delhi Development Horticulture Employees and Mullick have carved out definite exceptions to the concepts of equal pay and regularisation with reference to the clear distinguishing features of those cases. They do not however, whittle down the efficacy of the principle appreciably or so much as the three decisions referred to in the following paras.
39. The case, of State of U.P. v. Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad Shramik Sangh, AIR 1996 SC 708 arose out of the Judgment of Allahabad High Court directing the State to grant equal pay for equal work and to regularise the services of the daily wage casual labour regularly working for about 15 years and doing works similar to regular class IV employees. In an appeal by the State of U.P., the Supreme Court set aside the directions given by the High Court. This is what the Bench consisting of K. Ramaswamy and Kirpal, JJ. said:
"It is art administrative procedure that creation of a post is a condition for filling up the post on permanent basis. The exigencies of the administration and the need for the creation of number of posts are matters of executive policy by the appropriate government. It is stated in the Special Leave Petition filed in this Court that during the examinations conducted by the Board, when the exigencies demand for doing the manual work like lifting the bundles, pasting of envelopes and shifting of answer books etc. the daily wagers are engaged and a sum of Rs.25/- per day was being paid as fixed by the District Magistrate of Allahabad under the Minimum Wages Act. Unless the posts are created, they are not entitled to be fitted into any regular post. The performance of the manual duty may be like the duty of regular class IV employees. However, they are not entitled for the payment of equal wages so long as there are no posts created in that behalf We can understand that if there are vacant posts available in Class IV and they are filled up by appointing them to these posts on daily wages performing the same duties of regular employees, perhaps there may be justification for issuing directions for regularisation of their services according to rules and payment of the salary to the post to which they are fitted. But in view of the fact that no posts are created or existing, we cannot uphold the direction issued by the High Court to pay equal wages or to regularise their services.''
40. Though, it is not clear, we have reason to think that their lordships accepted the statement in the Special Leave Petition that the casual labour concerned were being deployed for manual works at the time of examinations conducted by the Board. Probably, they were not being employed throughout the year or for a number of months at a lime. If that be the case, the principle deducible is that if the casual labour are engaged sporadically every year and even if such sporadic employment continued year after year, they cannot compare themselves with regular employees doing the same type of work. But, the principle more explicitly laid down is that unless the posts are available or they were working against vacant posts, the daily wage employees cannot have any right or entitlement for regularisation in service and not even equal pay on par with regular employees. The ultimate direction given by their Lordships was - "We think that the appropriate course would be that as and when regular posts are created or posts fall vacant, these daily wage employees, on the- basis of their seniority, length of service and performance of work, may be considered for regularisation according to rules and rules of reservation in vogue. Until then, their services will be taken as and when exigencies would arise and payment of daily wages made as determined by the District Magistrate from time to time."
41. The next decision which deserves notice is the one rendered a few months earlier i.e., the case of Ghaziabad Development Authority v. Vikram Chaudhary, decided by K. Ramaswamy and Hansaria, JJ. That was also an appeal against the judgment of Allahabad High Court. The High Court negatived the relief of regularisation of the daily wage employees engaged in the projects undertaken by the Ghaziabad Development Authority and the High Court gave directions to follow the principles laid down in Section 25F and 25G of the Industrial Disputes Act, without going into the question whether the appellant is an industry, the Supreme Court upheld the direction given by the High Court. It was observed that the appellant needs to take the services of the labour according to the requirements in the projects on hand and if the appellant does not have any project on hand, the obligation to pay daily wages to the respondents does not arise. It was further observed that if the appellant undertakes any fresh project, the services of the existing daily wage employees should be taken instead of recruiting fresh hands. This case is somewhat proximate to the case of Delhi Development Horticulture Employees Union (supra) as the casual labour concerned were engaged in lime-bound project works. But, it was not on the basis of work pattern or the nature of scheme that the relief was negatived. The observations in last para are noteworthy:
"Since they are temporary daily wage employees, so long as there are no regular posts available for appointment, the question of making pay on par- with the regular employees does not arise. But the appellant should necessarily and by implication, pay the minimum wages prescribed under the statute."
42. While in the two decisions referred to above (i.e., 15 and 16 supra), the non-extension of the benefit of equal pay can be justified on the facts and features which we have already adverted to, the difficulty arises in giving effect to the proposition that unless sanctioned posts or vacancies are available, the relief cannot be granted. May, be for directing regularisation, it is a relevant consideration. But, in so far as the said decisions lay down that it is an equally relevant consideration for application of the concept of equal pay for equal work, they run counter to a catena of earlier decisions. In Dhirendra Chamoli's case (supra) such an argument was expressly negatived by their lordships in emphatic terms. The said decision was cited with approval by a three Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in Dharwad PWD Employees Association case (supra). None of these decisions were noticed by their Lordships. If the criterion propounded in the two recent decisions is (o be applied there could hardly be any case, where the casual labour working for long periods could be given that benefit which is a cherished constitutional goal. With great respect, we cannot give effect to the particular observations made by their Lordships in the above two cases in view of the preponderance of opinion to the contra If we have to choose between one decision of the Supreme Court and another, we would follow the one which has received the approval of a larger Bench. Accordingly, we do so.
43. The next decision which is of immediate relevance to the cases on hand is the decision in State of Haryana v. Jasmer Singh, (supra) decided by the Bench consisting of Ahmadi, CJ and Sujata V. Manohar, J. In that case, the Malis-cum-Chowkidars/Pump Operators employed on daily wages by the State of Haryana invoked the principle of 'equal pay for equal work' and sought payment of salary on par with regularly employed persons holding similar posts and doing similar jobs in the State service. The prayer was granted by the High Court. On appeal, the Supreme Court set aside the judgment of the High Court and directed the payment of minimum wages only. As far as the regularisation is concerned, their lordships referred to the schemes framed by the Government of Haryana and observed that such regularisation is a matter of policy to be decided upon by the State Government.
44. The discussion was prefaced by the following observations:
"The principle of 'equal pay for equal work' is not always easy to apply. There are inherent difficulties in comparing and evaluating work done by different persons in different organisations, or even in the same organisation."
45. After referring to some of the decided cases some of which we have already referred to, their Lordships observed:
"The respondents, therefore, in the present appeals who are employed on daily wages cannot be treated as on par with persons in regular service of the State of Haryana holding similar posts. Daily-rated workers are not required to possess the qualifications prescribed for regular workers, nor do they have to fulfil the requirement relating to age at the time of recruitment. They are not selected in the manner in which regular employees are selected. In other words the requirements for selection are not as rigorous. There are also other provisions relating to regular service such as the liability of a member of the service to be transferred, and his being subject to the disciplinary jurisdiction of the authorities as prescribed, which the daily-rated workmen are not subjected to. They cannot, therefore, be equated with regular workmen for the purposes of their wages. Nor can they claim the minimum of the regular pay-scale of the regularly employed.
The High Court was, therefore, not right in directing that the respondents should be paid the same salary and allowances as are being paid to regular employees holding similar posts with effect from the dates when the respondents were employed."
46. Thus, the possible difference in the qualifications, the mode of selection, the amenability to disciplinary action and for transfer were reckoned as relevant considerations to disentitle the casual/daily wage employees to the protection of "equal pay for equal work".
47. It may be pointed out that the mode of recruitment and transferability of regular staff were considered to be irrelevant factors in the application of the doctrine of "equal pay for equal work' in Jaipal's case (supra) and Bhagwan Dass case (supra). Even the lack of minimum qualifications by those engaged in doing unskilled manual jobs was not considered to be an impediment for extending the benefit of equal pay for the equal work in various cases starting from Dhirendra Chamoli case (supra). So also, the amenability to disciplinary action was never laid down as a relevant consideration. As far as the qualifications are concerned, the position may be different in the case of skilled or technical jobs or the ministerial level jobs. But, it was seldom applied in the case of casual labour doing unskilled or semi-skilled jobs assigned to Class-IV employees. In fact, in Jasmer Singh case (supra), it was not averred nor found that the respondents before the Supreme Court did not possess the requisite qualifications. If the observations made by their lordships in Jasmer Singh's case are taken to their logical extent, with great respect to their lordships, we must say that there would hardly be any case in which the principle of equal pay for equal work could be extended even in favour of casual labour doing menial or unskilled jobs as one or the other feature mentioned by their lordships will be wanting in almost all the cases. Probably, the differentiating features referred to by their lordships should be taken into account cumulatively but not individually, even then it cannot be gainsaid that the principle would operate in a very limited sphere.
48. However, as far as the present case are concerned, we feel no difficulty in distinguishing the judgment in Jasmer Singh's case (supra). The only method of recruitment provided for by Last Grade Service Regulations (referred to in brief supra) is by way of appointment of casual labourers, permanent Mazdoors/Contingent Employees. The category of permanent Mazdoors (contingent employees) is now extinct, as pointed out earlier. Thus, the recruitment is practically confined to casual labourers working in Research Stations etc. who are quite large in number. As regards qualification, the Regulations do not lay down any educational qualifications for absorption of casual labour except for Group-V posts. Bare literacy is sufficient in regard to some posts. In regard to those casual labour employed on the date of commencement of Regulations, even reading and writing is not necessary. So also, in the case of posts falling in Group II and III into which the petitioners herein can possibly be absorbed in the future. It may be mentioned here that the petitioners in first W.P. (who are skilled workers) are SSC holders. As regards transferability, we are told that the last grade servants of the University are seldom transferred from one unit to another. With regard to duties discharged and the work performed, there is admittedly no difference. The casual labour as and when they are absorbed in Last Grade posts will perform the same duties. There is no qualitative difference in the jobs performed or the duties discharged. For all these reasons, we are of the view that the decision in Jasmer Singh's case (supra) does not come in the way of the petitioners invoking the principle of equal pay for equal work.
49. In the light of the above discussion, we are of the view that the authorities of the University and the State Government cannot shirk from their duty to adhere to the principle of 'equal pay for the equal work.' We have said enough about the constitutional obligation of the State and the University in this regard by drawing support from the decisions of the Supreme Court. The cases on hand are fittest cases in which the principle of 'equal pay for equal work' should be translated into action. The skilled labour (petitioners in W.P.3780/88) are getting about Rs.60/- per day and the petitioners in other writ petitions are getting about Rs.45/- per day. These are the minimum wages prescribed by the State Government for various zones. The permanent Class IV (last grade) employee doing a similar work in the same establishment gets indisputably much more by way of salary. There is absolutely no reason why the petitioners who have been working for more than a decade and who had, so to say, dedicated their service to the University for several years should be denied wages on par with the pay drawn by regular last grade employees. Even if there is delay for genuine reasons in regularising their services, the least the respondents are expected to do is to step up their wages to the level of a Class-IV employees doing similar jobs. Keeping in view the directions given in similar matters by the Supreme Court as well as this Court, we direct that the petitioners should be paid wages for the work done by them proportionate to the pay drawn by regular last grade service employee engaged in similar work on the basis of the minimum time scale of pay attached to the post plus D.A. thereon. It is needless to say that the casual labour who are seniors to the petitioners in the same Unit should also be extended the same benefit.
50. The next question is from what date the petitioners should get the benefit of higher wages as per the directions given above. In the normal course, we would have thought of giving the benefit from the date of filing the writ petition. But we feel that such direction might create financial problems for the University which we are told has to depend on the grants and financial assistance given by the Government. The constraints on the resources of the employer is one of the relevant considerations that could be taken into account (vide Para 23 in Dharwad P. W.D. case). Undisputedly the University or the Research Stations concerned do not have adequate self-generated income to meet this additional expenditure which might involve additional payment to other senior casual labour as well. The Slate Government which is the main financing source for the University had been given notice suo molu only after the arguments started in the case. There is also the further fact that certain element of uncertainty in the legal position has crept in by reason of some recent decisions of the Supreme Court. Considering the pros and cons, we are inclined to grant the benefit only prospectively. Accordingly, we direct that the relief granted by its should be given effect to from 1st October, 1997 onwards. The State Government represented by the concerned Secretaries to Government, Food and Agriculture and the Finance Departments should take all necessary steps for the release of necessary sanction orders in this behalf, as and when approached by the University. We grant three months time from the date of receipt of this judgment to give effect to the direction and the differential wages due to the petitioners for their engagement from the month of October, 1997 onwards shall also be paid to them within that time. We further direct that the concerned authorities of University should not engage fresh casual labour without giving work to the petitioners merely for the purpose of avoiding payment of higher wages.
Re: Regularisation :
51. As far as the issue of regularisation is concerned we are not inclined to straightaway issue a positive direction having regard to the view taken in the decisions of the Supreme Court already referred to. The absence of sanctioned posts was considered to be a relevant ground to refuse regularisation in Dhirendra Chamoli case (supra). At the same time while expressing a hope that posts will be sanctioned by the Government, the Supreme Court observed:
"It is not at all desirable that any Management and particularly the Central Government should continue to employ persons on casual basis in organisations which have been in existence for over 12 years."
52. The same hope was expressed in Surinder Singh 's case (supra). The Daily Rated Casual Labour case (supra) the respondents were directed to prepare a scheme for absorbing as far as possible the casual labourers who have been continuously working for more than one year. The Supreme Court in very strong terms deprecated the practice of engaging casual labour on daily wages for long periods.
53. The earliest trend as well as the latest trend of the decisions of the Supreme Court is not to direct regularisalion in the absence of availability of posts. We have already noticed the observations in the recent decisions. In yet another recent case a Full Bench of the Supreme Court speaking through Majmudar, J. observed that the question of confirmation or regularisation of daily wage employees does not arise unless a vacancy is available. It was observed "It is axiomatic that unless there is vacancy there is no question of filling it up. There cannot be an employee without a vacancy or post available on which he can work and can be paid as per the budgetary sanctions" (vide Ashwani Kumar v. State of Bihar, ).
54. In another recent case-State of Himachal Pradesh v. Sitresh Kumar Verma, 1996 Lab. I.C. 1265, the prayer of the Project Casual Labourers to continue them in service against the existing vacancies was rejected by a three Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in the following terms:
"The vacancies are required to be filled up in accordance with the rules and all the candidates who would otherwise be eligible are entitled to apply for when recruitment is made and seek consideration of their claims on merit according to the Rules for direct recruitment along with all the eligible candidates. The appointment on daily wages cannot be a conduit pipe for regular appointments which would be a back-door entry, detrimental to the efficiency of service and would breed seeds of nepotism and corruption. It is equally settled law that even for Class IV employees recruitment according to rules is a pre-condition."
55. The problem of regularisation of casual labour, work-charged employees and ad hoc government servants was considered by the Supreme Court comprehensively in State of Haryana v. Piara Singh, . The Supreme Court found fault with the Punjab and Haryana High Court in directing wholesome regularisation of all such persons who have put in one year of service either on ad hoc, temporary or casual basis and underlined the need for a balanced, pragmatic and cautious approach. The Supreme Court also indicated that the proper course would be that each Slate prepares a scheme, if one is not already in vogue, for regularisation of such employees consistent with its reservation policy. The approach to be adopted by the State and instrumentalities as regards the casual labour has been set out in the following terms:
"So far as the work-charged employees and casual labour are concerned, the effort must be to regularise them as far as possible and as early as possible subject to their fulfilling the qualifications, if any, prescribed for the post and subject also to availability of work. If a casual labourer is continued for a fairly long spell-say two or three years-a presumption may arise that there is regular need for his services. In such a situation, it becomes obligatory for the authority concerned to examine the feasibility of his regularisation. While doing so, the authorities ought to adopt a positive approach coupled with an empathy for the person. As has been repeatedly stressed by this Court, security of tenure is necessary for an employee to give his best to the job."
56. Referring to the role of the Court and the duties of the State in matters relating to wages and regularisation of employees, it was observed at Paragraph 21 :
"The main concern of the Court in such matters is to ensure the rule of law and to see that the Executive acts fairly and gives a fair deal to its employees consistent with the requirements of Articles 14 and 16. It also means that the State should not exploit its employees nor should it seek to take advantage of the helplessness and misery of either the unemployed persons or the employees, as the case may be. As is often said, the State must be a model employer. It is for this reason, it is held that equal pay must be given for equal work, which is indeed one of the directive principles of the Constitution. It is for this very reason it is held that a person should not be kept in a temporary or ad hoc status for long. Where a temporary or ad hoc appointment is continued for long, the Court presumes that there is need and warrant for a regular post and accordingly directs regularisation."
57. There Lordships commended the efforts of the State Government to regularise the services of ad hoc and temporary employees by framing certain schemes.
58. Before proceeding further, we would like to refer to the Division Bench decision of this Court in Writ Appeal No. 1229 of 1995. There also, the writ petitioner was a casual labourer working in Agricultural Research Station, Amberpet. A direction was issued to regularise the services of the petitioner and extend the benefit of continuous service rendered by her with effect from the date of allowing the writ petition as if she was substantively appointed, for the purposes of seniority and increments. It is stated by the learned Standing Counsel for the University that the Supreme Court granted leave to appeal against this judgment and stayed its operation.
59. In that case, the bar against1 regularisation of service imposed by Section 7 of the Andhra Pradesh (Regularisation of Appointment to Public Services and Rationalisation of Staff Pattern and Pay Structure) Act, 1994 which came into force on 25-11 -1993 was pleaded by the appellant-University. The argument was repelled by referring to the 2nd proviso to Section 7 of the said Act and also the protection afforded by Section 25J of the Industrial Disputes Act, The learned Judges proceeded on the basis that the appellant could not terminate the services of the writ petitioner for the reason that her rights as 'workman' were protected under Chapter VA of the Industrial Disputes Act. No argument based on Section 7 of the said Act has been advanced before us. Hence, it is not necessary to deal with this aspect. We are also not inclined to express any opinion on the question whether the petitioners can be treated as 'workmen' under Industrial Disputes Act.
60. The contention advanced on behalf of the University that the Government did not sanction the posts was described by the Division Bench as 'an argument of desperation'. The employment of the writ petitioner, it was observed by the learned Judges, had the "trappings of regular and substantive appointment''. The Division Bench held that the Respondent acquired the status of a permanent employee as she was working continuously without break for more than one and half-a-decade. Having so observed, the learned Judges held that "the Grade IV scale of pay alone is the proper scale of pay which the University is obliged to pay the writ petitioner". The learned Judge, however, declined to grant any relief for payment of differential back-wages.
61. We do not want to go so far as the Division Bench has done in treating the casual employment of the petitioners herein as regular or substantive appointment especially because the learned Judges did not take note of the recent decisions of the Supreme Court which we have referred to. and A.P.A.U. Last Grade Service Regulations which itself provides for a scheme for regularisation of services of casual labour. Moreover, we find a distinction in facts. The service particulars of the petitioners before us do not indicate that they worked continuously throughout the year without break though they did work for substantial number of days. According to the averments in the counters and the information furnished to us, the petitioners were mostly engaged during the season though during some years, they were continued beyond the season also. Hence, the ratio of the said judgment cannot be mechanically applied here, apart from other considerations pointed out above.
62. In Delhi Development Horticulture Employees Union case (supra), the following test was formulated by Sawant, J. at Paragraph 16 :
"For regularisation, there must be regular and permanent posts or it must be established that although the work is of regular and permanent nature, the device of appointing and keeping the workers on ad hoc or temporary basis has been restored to, to deny them the legitimate benefits of permanent employment."
63. Basing on the material before us, we are unable to hold that any device was adopted by the University to deny the benefit of regularisation to its employees. On the other hand, the University adopted a positive approach by addressing the Government to sanction additional posts for the purpose of absorption of casual labour. Moreover, the University itself had taken steps for regularisation as casual labour by framing Regulations as long back in 1982 to which we have already adverted.
64. Alt this was in clear recognition of the fact that the employment of casual labour was inevitable in the agricultural farms etc. and the interests of such casual labour who have put in long spells of service should be taken care of. Though the respondents have taken the stand that the employment of the petitioners was only intermittent or seasonal, from the particulars of the service, it is clear that they were engaged almost throughout the year. Otherwise, it was not possible to work for so many days in a year excluding the holidays. In fact, it is admitted in the note annexed to the statement filed by the Registrar of the University in W.P.No.16134 of 1988 that the concerned Principals and Heads of Research Stations engaged casual labour even during off-season due to exigencies of work. Having regard to the peculiar nature of work in the Research Stations and the Farms maintained by the University, as already observed, the engagement of workers almost on continuous basis seems to be inevitable. Instead of realising this stark reality and appreciating the needs of the University and without approaching the problem from a proper perspective, the Slate Government turned down the proposals of the University in a summary and mechanical manner. The existing scheme provided in the Regulations for absorption of casual labour is not by itself adequate enough to lake care of the interests of large number of casual labour working since more than a decade or decade and half. In order to fulfil the constitutional obligations and to act in conformity with the law laid down by the Supreme Court in various cases, it is necessary to augment the existing cadre strength by creating additional Class IV posts. But, unfortunately, the State Government took a stand and adopted an altitude which does not behove a model employer.
65. The approach or the State Government is exactly contrary to what the Supreme Court pointed out in Piara Singh's case (supra). As the number of staff of permanent establishment are not sufficient to enable the University to carry out the operations in the farms and there is need to engage the casual labour in addition to the permanent employees almost regularly and that is being done for years and decades together, there is hardly any justification not to create additional posts. The rule of presumption enunciated by the Supreme Court in the passages quoted above would apply with great force to the facts of these cases. It may be that the creation of about 2800 posts at a time may not be possible in view of financial constraints on the State or so many number of posts may or may not be required on a realistic appraisal of the work load and the needs of employer. Instead of deliberating with the University officials and conceding to the minimum needs of the University atleast in a phased manner, the Government made a blanket refusal to agree for the sanction of additional Class IV posts, over-simplifying the whole issue as 'limitless problem'.
66. In these circumstances, we direct the State Government to reconsider the request of the A.P. Agricultural University for sanction of additional posts in Last Grade Service in order to facilitate the absorption of casual labour working for a long time in the Fruit Research Station, Sangareddy, Agricultural Research Station, Amberpet and Agricultural Research Institute, Rajendra Nagar. This should be done expeditiously. It is needless to mention that the observations made in this judgment shall be kept in view while taking appropriate decision. We further direct that the University Authorities shall not disqualify any of the petitioners on the ground of overage unless they are physically unfit to do the jobs, while considering them for regular appointment. We are giving this direction as we feel that in view of the long passage of time, relaxation in age provided for by the Regulations is not adequate enough to do justice to some of the petitioners (women) who have been working as casual labour for more than two decades.
67. The Writ Petitions are accordingly disposed of with the directions as contained in the judgment as regards the two aspects of payment, of higher wages and reconsideration of the issue of sanction of additional posts. No costs.