STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS.versusSURINDER SINGH AND ANR.

             )
                                   STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS.                             A
                                                       v.
                                   SURINDER SINGH AND ANR.

                                         OCTOBER 25, 2007
                                                                                        B
                       [A.K. MATHUR AND MARKANDEY KA TJU, JJ.]
            +-
    ~
~
                      Service Law:

                       Daily wage employees-Claim for equal pay for equal work-
                 Allowed by trial court and High Court-HELD: There should be
                                                                                        c
                 complete and total identity between two persons similarly situate'd so
                 as to grant equal pay for equal work-In case ofa regular appointee,
                 he has undergone a selection process and his services are regular-
                 Even if a daily wage employee is discharging same functions as a
                 regular employee, the authorities are not bound to grant equal pay to D
        y        him as he is appointed for a short term and has not faced selection
                 process-Orders ofHigh Court and the trial court are set aside.
                    S. C. Chandra and Ors. v. State ofJharkhand and Ors., [2007] 9
                 SCR 130=JT(2007) 10 SC 272, relied on.                            E
                     CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 5607-
                 5608 of 2001.
                     From the Judgment and final Order dated 24.05.2000 of the fligh
                 Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in RSA Nos. 42-43 of2000. F
                      Nikhil Jain and Ajay Pal for the Appellants.
                     Neeraj Kumar Jain, Bharat Singh, Sanjay Singh, San~eep
                 Chaturvedi, Sachin Jain and Ugra Shankar Prasad for the Respondents.
                      The following Order of the Court was delivered                    G
        ~-
                                                  ORDER

                      Heard learned for the parties.
                                                  707                                   H
                                                                                \
                                                                                -\
    708           SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2007] 11 S.C.R.


A      These appeals by special leave are directed against the common
  judgment and order dated 24.5.2000 passed by a learned Single Judge
  of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in Regular Second Appeal Nos.
  42/2000 and 43/2000 whereby the High Court has upheld the order of
  the Trial Court. The Trial Court had directed that the respondents herein
B who were working as Tractor Drivers on daily wage basis should be
  granted the same pay scale as those who had been regularly appointed,
                                                                                    ~
  on the principle of equal pay for equal work. However, the other relief
                                                                                          ~
  regarding regularization of their services was declined by the Trial Court
  and the same was affirmed by the High Court.
c       Aggrieved by the order of the High Court, the State of Punjab is in
    appeal before us.
       Special leave was granted by this Court on 17.8.2001 and the
  execution of the order passed by the High Court was stayed. Today the
D appeals are before us for final hearing.
       We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the                 y
  impugned judgment of the High Court as also of the Trial Court.
        The principle of equal pay for equal work has gone a sea change.
E Earlier the view of this Court was that If two persons are discharging the
  same functions, they will be entitled to same wages. Subsequently this view
  has been changed and now the view of this Court is that there should be
  complete and total identity between the two persons similarly situated so
  as to grant equal pay for equal work. Recently this Court has held that
F identity between two persons has to be complete and total. In case of a
  regular appointee, he has undergone a selection process and his se~ices
  are regular. Even if a daily wage employee is discharging the same                  ·""
  functions as a regular employee the authorities are not bound to grant
  equal pay to such a person who is appointed on daily wage basis, i.e., is
  appointed for a short term and has not faced the selection process. Thus,
G
  the principle of equal pay for equal work has to be granted only if there
  is a total and complete identity between the two persons. In this view,            .1
  we are supported by a decision of this Court in the case of S. C. Chandra
  & Ors. v. State of Jharkhand & Ors., [2007] 9 SCR 130-JT [2007]
  10 SC 272, which has referred to earlier decisions of this Court.
H
        !
        }
)
    I

                             STATE v. SURINDER SINGH                            709

                  In the aforesaid decision one of us (Markandey Katju, J.) in his A
            concurring judgment has held that granting pay scale is an executive or
            legislative function, and not a judicial function. There is separation of
            powers under the Constitution between the three organs of the State1 and
            the judiciary should not encroach into the domain of the other organs.
            Montesquieus theory of separation of powers broadly applies in India too. B
                  In view of the legal position, as mentioned above, we are of the
            opinion that the view taken by the High Court granting pay scale of regular
            employees to the daily wage employees does not appear to be ~ell
            founded. Consequently, we allow these appeals and set aside the order C
            of the High Court as also of the Trial Court and dismiss the suits filed by
            the respondents herein.
                  The appeals are allowed. No order as to costs.
            RP.                                                    Appeals allowed. D




                  , '