STATE OF PUNJAB & Ors. v. JAGJIT SINGH & Ors.

3.3 Even in the case urider reference-Stllte of Punjflb v. Surjit Singh, this Court accepted the principle of 'equal pay for equal work', as applicable to temporary employees, by requiring the State to examine the claim of the respondents for pay parity, by appointing an expert committee. The expert committee was required to determine, whether the respondents satisfied the conditions stipulated in different judgments of this Court including Stllte of Haryana v. Charanjit Singh, wherein this Court had acceded to the proposition, that daily-wagers who were rendering the same duties and responsibilities as regular employees, would be entitled to the minimum wage payable to regular employees. And had therefore, remanded the matter back to the High Court for a fresh adjudication. In view thereof, the claim of the temporary employees, for minimum wages, at par with regularly engaged Government employees, cannot be declined, on the basis of Stllle of Punjab v. Surjit Singh case. [Para 49) [436-H; 437-A-C) 3 •. 4 The observations in Satya Prakash case, relied upon by the full bench of the High Court, dealt with the issue of regularization, and not with the concept of 'equal pay for equal work'. This gains further ground from the fact that the appellants in the Satya Prakash case had approached this Court, to claim the benefit of the judgment in the Secretary, $tale of Karnataka case, wherein the issue canvassed was of regularization, and not pay parity. Therefore, reliance on Secre1<1ry, State of ·Karn<1taka case, for determining the question of pay parity, resulted in the High Court drawing an incorrect inference. (Para SO) (438-G-H; 439-G)

3.5 The Full Bench of the High Court, while adjudicating upon the controversy had concluded, that temporary employees were not entitled to the minimum of the regular pay-scale, merely for the reason, that the activities carried on by daily-wagers and ., STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. v. JAGJIT SINGH & ORS. 359 regular employees were similar. The full bench however, made two exceptions. Temporary employees, who fell in either of the two exceptions, were held entitled to wages at the minimum of the pay-scale drawn by regular employees. The full bench carved an exception for employees who were not appointed against regular sanctioned posts, if their services had remained continuous (with notional breaks, as well), for a period of 10 years. This category of temporary employees, was extended the benefit of wages at the minimum of the regular pay-scale. The above position adopted by the High Court reveals, that the High Court intermingled the legal position determined by this Court on the subject of regularization of employees, while adjudicating upon the proposition of pay parity, emerging under the principle of 'equal pay for equal work'. It is this mix-up, which resulted in the High Court recording its conclusions. The High Court extended different wages to temporary employees, by categorizing them on the basis of their length of service. This is clearly in the teeth of _judgment in the Dllily R{lfed CllSUlll Lllbour Employed case, wherein the classification was held to be violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Based on the consideration recorded, the determination in the impugned judgment rendered by the full bench of the High Court, whereby it classified temporary employees for differential treatment on the subject of wages, is clearly unsustainable, and is liable to be set aside. (Para 51) (439- H; 440-A, G-H; 441-A-E]

3.6 The decision rendered by the Full Bench of the High Court in Avfar Singh v. State of Punjab & Ors. and the decision rendered by the division bench of the High Court in Stllte of Punjllb & Ors. v. Rlljinder Singh & Ors. is set aside. The decision rendered in Stllte of Punjllb & Ors. v. Rajinder Kumllr is affirmed with the modification, that the concerned employees would be entitled to the minimum of the pay-scale, of the category to which they belong, but would not be entitled to allowances attached to the posts held by them. [Para 52) [441-G-H) Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (2006) 4 SCC 1:2006 (3) SCR 953; State of Punjab v. Surjit Singh (2009) 9 sec 514:2009 (12) SCR 394; State of Haryana v. Charanjit Singh (2006) 9 sec 321:2005 - (4) Suppl. SCR 57; Satya Prakash v. State of Bihar r A B c D E F G H 360 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 7 S.C.R. A 8 c D E F G H