All Haryana PWD Mechanical Karamchari Union Regd. No.681, Head v. State of Haryana through Secretary to Govt. Haryana PWD (Public

Mr. Ravi Dutt Sharma, DAG, Haryana. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN

1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?

2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? K. KANNAN J.(ORAL) -.-

There is no representation on behalf of the petitioners. In these cases, learned counsel for the respondents is present. Since the cases relates to the year between 1989 to 1995, I have hastened to pass this order by examining the records with the assistance of learned counsel appearing for the State, Sh. Sharma.

The batch of writ petitions address two different situations. The petitioners in some of the writ petitions seek for payment of ex-gratia bonus for the year 1987-1988 and in some cases, the claim is a challenge to recovery of alleged excess payment made by the State to the petitioners for the years 1988, 1989, 1990 and 1991. The defence by the State was that the payments sought to be made in favour of the employees were not under the Payment of Bonus Act, but, on the other hand, were based on instructions issued by the Finance Commissioner and Secretary to Government giving expression to the decision of the Government to grant ad hoc bonus to the Government employees in the year 1987-

While the claim of the petitioners was that they fulfilled the eligibility criteria, the contention on behalf of the State for refusal was on a ground that they were all work-charged employees and the C.W.P. No.15455 of 1989 -4- payment of their salaries were charged to particular projects and the State was not prepared to undertake such a responsibility for work-charged employees in the year 1987. It is also the contention on behalf of the State that in view of the persistent demands, a different change in policy had been adopted admitting work-charged employees also for payment of ad hoc bonus for subsequent years namely from 1988-89 onwards.

2. That there exists two categories of workmen namely work- charged employees and regular employees, is a point well taken but the issue is whether the petitioners could treat themselves as aggrieved by any act of discrimination by the State. If there is a right to secure a bonus then any act of discrimination could sustain the challenge against such discriminatory action. Even in the grant of State largesse, it has been held in several decisions that Article 14 shall be attracted. The parameter for determining whether an action is arbitrary or discriminatory would be required to be done in the context of all trappings attached to Article 14, which would include the existence of intelligible differentia that could support a reason for a different treatment. The post facto approval of a scheme of payment of ad hoc bonus to work-charged employees for subsequent years would itself, in my view, not support the claim of the petitioners, if the State had reasons to treat them differently for the earlier years. The classification between regular employees and work-charged employees is too obvious to require further elucidation. If the wages were to be given only from the cost of the project or by the revenues generated in a particular project, then C.W.P. No.15455 of 1989 -5- the State could not be compelled to undertake a liability for work- charged employees through a mandamus, for that would mean dictating a policy to a Government, which cannot be said to be arbitrary. The petitioners cannot obtain the mandamus for a payment of bonus which is in the nature of ex gratia for the year 1987-88. The claims in the writ petitions demanding such payments are dismissed.

In so far as the writ petitions challenging the claim for recovery by the State for alleged excess payments, the issue of recovery of amounts paid, which was not on account of any fraud or misrepresentation has been fully addressed by a Full Bench of this Court in Budh Ram Vs State of Haryana and others 2009(3) SCT

The writ petitions in so far as they challenge the recovery of payments already made by the State are quashed. The writ petitions are disposed of in the above terms. There shall be, however, no direction as to costs. April 27, 2010 Pankaj* (K. KANNAN) JUDGE