STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.versusJASMER SINGH AND ORS.

A                    STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.
                                 v.
                       JASMER SINGH AND ORS.

                            NOVEMBER 7, 1996

B          [A.M. AHMADI, CJ. AND SUJATA V. MANOHAR, J.]

         Labour Law:

         Parity in pa;~Equal pay for equal work-Mali-cum-Chowkidars/
C Pump Operators employed on daily wages-Held: not entitled to parity in
    pay with regulate employees-Such daily-rated workers entitled only to
    minimum wages, if any, prescribed for them.

        Parity in parEqual pay for equal work-Principle-Application
  of-Held: not always easy to applrlnvolved evaluation ofwork performed
                                                                              -
  by different persons holding different jobs-Unless there were ma/a fides,
D evaluation by expert bodies must be accepted-Constitution ofIndia, 1950
  Arts. 14 and 16.

         Daily-rated workers-Completed prescribed length of service-
    Regularisation of-Held: a matter of policy to be-decided upon by State
E   Government.

          The resi.ondents were employed as Mail-cum-Chowkidars/Pump
    Operators on daily wages by the appellant--State. The respondent
    filed a writ petition before the High Court claiming 'equal pay for
    equal work' as was being paid to regularly employed persons holding
F   similar posts in the services of the appellant--State. The High Court
    allowed the writ petition. Being aggrieved the appellant--State
    preferred the present appeal.                           ·

         Allowing the appeal, this Court
G
        HELD: I.I. 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. The quality of work
  performed by different sets of persons holding different jobs will have
H to be evaluated. There may be differences in educational or technical
                                      592
               STATE OF HARY ANA v. JASMER SINGH                     593


qualifications which the holders bring to their job although the            A
designation of the job may be the same. There may also be other
considerations which have relevance to efficiency in service which
may justify differences in pay-scales on the basis of criteria such as
experience and seniority, or a need to prevent stagnation in the cadre,
so that good performance can be elicited from persons who have
reached top of the pay-scale. There may be various other similar            B
considerations which may have a bearing on efficient performance in
a job. The evaluation of such jobs for the purposes of pay-scale must
be left to expert bodies and, unless there are any ma/a /ides its
evaluation should be accepted. [594 GH 596 GH 597 A)

     Federation of All India Customs and Central Excise Stenographers       C
(Recognised) and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors, [1988] 3 SCC 91; State
of UP. and Ors. v. JP. Chaurasia and Ors., [1989] 1 SCC 121; Mewa
Ram Kanojia v. All India Institute of Medical Sciences and Ors., [1989] 2
SCC 235; Harbans Lal and Ors. v. State of HP. and Ors., [1989] 4 SCC
459 and Ghaziabad Development Authority v. Vikram Chaudhary, [1995]
5 sec 210, relied on.                                                       D
      Randhir Singh v. Union of India, [1982] 1 SCC 618, Dhirendra
Chamoli and Anr. v. State o/UP., [1986] l SCC 637 and Jaipal and Ors.
v. State of Haryana and Ors., [1988] 3 SCC 354, referred to.

      1.2. Therefore, the respondents, who were employed on daily E
wages cannot be treated as on a par with persons in regular service of
the state 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 F
employees are selected. 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 for their wages. Nor can they claim the minimum of G
the regular pay-scale of the regularly employed. However, if a
minimum wage is prescribed for such workers, the respondents would
be entitled to it if it is more than what they are being paid. But
regularisation of daily-rated workmen who had completed the
prescribed length of service is a matter of policy to be decided upon
by the State Government. [597 C-E, F 598 CJ                            H
    594                     SUPREME COURT REPORTS [I 996] SUPP. 8 S.C.R.


A         CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. !4223 Of
    l 996 Etc. Etc.

         From the Judgment and Order dated 23.3.95 of the Punjab and
    Haryana High Cou1t in C. W.P. No. 15920 of l 994.

B         K. Madhava Reddy, V.A. Mohta, Prem Malhotra for Ms. lndu
    Malhotra, Kitti Kumar, Gurinder Pal Singh, G.G. Singh, (J.S. Mannipur,
    0. Nand Lal, l.D. Single) for Anil Kumar Gupta-II, Anis Ahmed Khan,
    (Jasbir Malik, J.P.N. Gupta), for M.S. Dahiya, Ms. Anjana Sharma, Ms.
    Puja Anand, Madan Dev Sharma, C.S. Ashri, R.C. Pathak, Ms. Naresh
    Bakshi and Ms. Revathy Raghavan for the appearing parties.
c
          The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

          MRS. SUJATA V. MANOHAR, J. Delay condoned.

          Leave granted.
D
          These appeals have been filed by the State of Haryana against the
    various judgments of the Punjab and Haryana High Court granting to
    perons employed by the State of Haryana on daily wages the same pay as
    those holding regular posts in Govt. Service. For the sake of convenience
E   the particulars of special leave petition No. 27150 of 1995 are set out.

          The respondents are employed as Mali-cum-Chowkidars/Pump
    Operators on daily wages by the State of Haryana from different dates.
    The respondents prayed that on the basis of 'equal pay or equal work'
    they should be paid the same salary as is being paid to regularly employed
F   persons holding similar posts in the services of the State of Haryana. This
    prayer was granted by the High Court which directed the State of Haryana
    to pay to the respondents the same salary and allowances as are being paid
    to regular employees holding similar posts with effect from the dates the
    respondents were employed on the posts held by them.
G
          The principle of 'equal pay or equal work' is not always easy to
    apply. There are inherent difficulties in comparing the evaluating work
    done by different persons in different organisations, or even in the same
    organisation. The principle was originally enunciated as a part of the
    Directive Principles of State Policy in Article 39(d) of the Constitution.
H   In the case of Randhir Singh v. Union of India and ors., [1982] l SCC
     STATE OF HARYANA "·JASMER SINGH [MRS. SCJATA V. MANOHAR. J.]        595


618, however, this Court said that this was a constitutional goal capable of      A
being achieved through constitutional remedies and held that the principle
had to be read into Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. In that case a
Driver-constable in the Delhi Police Force under the Delhi Administration
claimed equal salary as other Drivers and this prayer was granted. The
same principle was subsequently followed for the purpose of granting
relief in Dhirendra Chamoli and Anr. v. State of UP., [l 986] I SCC 637           B
and Jaipal and Ors. v. State of H01yana and Ors., [l 988] 3 SCC 354. In
the case of Federation of All India Customs and Central Excise
Stenographers (Recognised) and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors., [1988]
3 SCC 91, however, this Court explained the principle of 'equal pay for
equal work' by holding that differentiation in pay-scales among government
servants holding same posts and performing similar work on the basis of           C
difference in the degre of responsibility, reliability and confidentiality
would be a valid differentiation. In that case different pay-scales fixed for
stenographers (Gradel) working in the Central Secretariat and those attached
to the heads of subordinate offices on the basis of a recommendation of
the Pay Commission was held as not violating Article 14 and as not being
contrary to the principle of 'equal pay for equal work'. This Court also          D
said that the judgment of administrative authorities concerning the
responsibilities which attach to the post, and the degree of reliability
expected of an incumbent, would be a value judgment of the concerned
authorities which, if arrived at bona fide, reasonably and rationally, was
not open to interference by the Court.
                                                                                  E
       In the case of State of UP. and Ors. v. JP. Chaurasia and Ors.,
[ 1989] l SCC 12 l this Court again sounded a note of caution. It pointed
out that the principle of 'equal pay for equal work' has no mechanical
application in every case of similar work. Article 14 permits reasonable
classification based on qualities or characteristics of persons recruited and     F
grouped together, as against those who are left out. Of course, these qualities
or characteristics must have a reason1ble relation to the object sought to
be achieved. In the case before the court, the Bench Secretaries in the
High Court of Allahabad claimed the same pay as Section Officers. While
negativing this claim, the court said that in service matters merit or
experience can be a proper basis for classification for the purposes of pay       G
in order to promote efficiency in administration. That apart, a higher pay-
scale to avoid stagnation or resultant frustration for lack of promotional
avenues is also an acceptable reason for pay differentiation. It observed
that although all Bench Secretaries may do the same work, their quality of
work may differ. Bench Secretaries (Grade l) are selected by a Selection
Committee on the basis of merit with due regard to seniority. A higher            H
     596                     SUPREME COURT REPORTS [I 996] SUPP. 8 S.C.R.


A pay-scale granted to such Bench Secretaries who are evaluated by competent
    authority cannot be challenged.

          In the case of Mewa Ram Kannjia v. All India Institute of Medical
   Sciences and Ors., (1989] 2 SCC 235, a classification based on difference
    in educational qualifications was held as justifying a difference in pay-
B scales. This Court fur~her observed that the judgment of the Pay
    Commission in this regard relating to the nature of the job, in the absence
    of material to the contrary, should be accepted. Referring to these decisions,
    this Court in the case of Har bans Lal and Ors. v. State ofHimachal Pradesh
    and Ors., (1989] 4 SCC 459 summed up the position by stating that a
    mere nomenclature designating a person as a Carpenter or a Craftsman
C was not enough to come to the conclusion that he was doing the same
    work as another Carpenter in regular service. In that case, carpenters
    employed by the Himachal Pradesh Handicraft Corporation on daily wages
    sought parity of wages with Carpenters in regular service. This Court
    negatived this contention, holding that a comparison cannot be made with
    counterparts in other establishments with different management or even
D in the establishments in different locations though owned by the same
  , management. The quality of work which is produced may be different
    and even the nature of work assigned may be different. It is not just a
    comparison of physical activity. The application of the principle of 'equal
    pay for equal work' requires consideration of various dimensions of a
E given job. The accuracy required and the dexterity that the job may entail
    may differ from job to job. It must be left to be evaluated and determined
    by an expert body. The latest judgment pointed out in this connection is
    the decision in the case of Ghaziabad Development Authority and Ors. v.
     Vikram Chaudhary and Ors., [ 1995] 5 SCC 210.

F       It is, therefore, clear that the quality of work performed by different
  sets of persons holding different jobs will have to be evaluated. There
  may be differences in educational or technical qualifications which may
  have a bearing on the skills which the holders bring to their job although
  the designation of the job may be the same. There may also be other
G considerations which have relevance to efficiency in service which may
  justify differences in pay-scales on the basis of criteria such as experience
  and seniority, or a need to prevent stagnation in the cadre, so that good
   performance can be elicited from persons who have reached the top of the
   pay-scale. There may be various other similar considerations which may
   have a bearing on efficient performance in a job. This Court has repeatedly
H observed that evaluation of such jobs for the purposes of pay-scale must
       3TATE OF HAR YANA v. JASMER SINGH :MRS SUJATA V. MANOHAR, J.l        597


 be left to expert bodies and, unless there are any mala fides, its evaluation      A
 should be accepted.

      This Court in the case of Harbans Lal and Ors. v. State of Himachal
 Pradesh and Ors. (supra) further held that daily-rated workmen who were
 before the Court in that case were entitled to be paid minimum wages
 admissible to such workmen as prescribed and not the minimum in the                B
 pay-scale applicable to similar employees in regular service-unless the
 employer had decided to make such minimum in the pay-scale applicable
 to the daily-rated workmen. The same position is reiterated in the case of
 Ghaziabad Development Authority v, Vikram Chaudhary and Ors. (supra),

       The respondents, therefore, in the present appeals who are employed          C
 on daily wages cannot be treated as on a 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. Jn other words the requirements for selection are          D
 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 for their wages. Nor
 can they claim the minimum of the regular pay-scale of the regularly               E
 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         F
 when the respondents were employed. If a minimum wage is prescribed
 for such workers, the respondents ""ould be entitled to it if it is more than
 what they are being paid.

        The appellants have fairly stated that the Govt. of Haryana has, from
  time to time, issued notifications for regularisation of daily-rated workmen      G
, such as the respondents, on the basis of a policy decision taken by it to
  regularise the services of such employees as may be specified. Thus,
  under a Notification of 11th of May, 1994 daily wage earners who had
  completed five years of service as on 31.3. 1993 and who were covered by
  that notification were entitled to regularisation of their service. The latest
  notification in this regard is dated 18th of March, 1996 issued by the            H
    598                      SUPREMECQIJRT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 8 S.C.R.


A General Administration, Govt. of Haryana. This deals with regularisation
    ofWork-Charged/Casual/DaUy-rated employees with the State ofHaryana.
    It sets out that it has been decided to regularise the service of all those
    Work-Charged/Casual/Daily-rated employees who have completed three
    years' service on 31st of January 1996 and fulfil other conditions laid
    down in the Haryana Govt. letter of even number dated 7th of March,
B   1996. Such of the respondents before us who fulfil the prescribed
    requirements will be, naturaily, entitled to the benefit of regularisation. In
    fact, it has been pointed out to us by the appellants that out of 6, 715 daily-
    rated workers, 3, 280 are already regularised as of 31st January, 1996.
    This figure of 3,280 includes 2,082 respondents before us. The balance
    employees could not be regularised as they have not yet completed three
C   year's of service. Such regularisation is a matter of policy to be decided
    upon by the State Government.

           In the premises, the appeals are allowed and judgments and orders
    of the High Court are set aside. There will, however, be no order as to
    costs.
D
    v.s.s.                                                      Appeals allowed.