Allahabad High Court
Bimal Chand Pandey And Another vs Engineer-In-Chief, P.W.D. Lucknow And ... on 15 September, 1999
Equivalent citations: 1999(4)AWC3407, [2000(85)FLR726], (2000)1UPLBEC240
Author: M. Katju
Bench: M. Katju
JUDGMENT N.K. Mitra, C.J. and M. Katju, J.
1. This special appeal has been filed against the judgment of the learned single Judge dated 5.8.1999.
2. We have heard Sri Ashok Khare, learned counsel for the appellant and the learned standing counsel. The appellants had been appointed as daily wage employees in the service of the respondent in December, 1985 and October. 1988 respectively, and since then have been in continuous service. It is alleged that the respondents had regularised the services of some similarly circumstanced employees while not regularising the services of the appellants. Those who were regularised are Badruddin son of Kamaluddin. Ghulam Hussain son of Iqbal Hussain. Arun Kumar son of Raja Ram. Amar Raj son of Abhai Raj who were working as Mate. The respondents also regularised the services of Ghulam Kadir son of Alauddin. Ramesh son of Mewa Lal and Amrit Raj son of Mewa Lal as Beldar but the appellants have not been regularised.
3. In our opinion, the Department cannot keep a person as temporary or on dally wage basis indefinitely. It is indeed unfortunate that some employees are often kept on dally wage basis or on temporary basis for years on end. No doubt ordinarily confirmation of a temporary employees is the prerogative of the employer, but the employer cannot act arbitrarily in this regard. As held by the Supreme Court in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 597, arbitrariness violates Article 14 of the Constitution. Hence the authorities must act in a non-arbitrary manner. In our opinion, in this case the respondents have acted in an arbitrary manner by keeping the petitioners on dally wage basis for such a long period. The appellant No. 1 was appointed In 1985 and the appellant No. 2 in 1988 and hence they have been in service for 14 and 11 years respectively.
4. In our opinion, when a person is appointed on daily wage or on temporary basis, then the authority concerned must make up its mind within two or three years of the appointment whether to confirm the said employee or to terminate his service if he is incompetent, but keeping a person on temporary or on daily wage basis for a long period is arbitrary and not justifiable. Admittedly, the appellants are doing the same work as regular employees. Hence, in our opinion, they are entitled to get the same salary as regular employees on the principle of equal pay for equal work and they are also entitled to be regularised. Moreover, there is discrimination against the petitioner since similarly placed persons have been regularised and hence Article 14 of the Constitution is being violated.
5. Hence this appeal is allowed. The judgment of the learned single Judge dated 5.8.1999 is set aside. The authority concerned is directed to regularise the appellants and pay salary of regular employees to them within a month of production of a certified copy of this order before it.