HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH

AT SRINAGAR

WP (C) No. 1493/2023

CM No. 3508/2023

Reserved On: 18th of February, 2025

Pronounced On: 1st of March, 2025

Farooq Ahmad Janda, Age: 43 Years

S/O Mohammad Sultan Janda
R/O Gousia Colony, Khanyar,
Srinagar.
… Petitioner(s)
Through: -
Mr Gulzar Ahmad Bhat, Advocate.
V/s
1. Union of India through Secretary,
Ministry of Communication and Information Technology,
Department of Posts, Dak Bhawan, New Delhi.
2. Chief Post Master General, J&K Postal Circle, Srinagar, 190001.
3. Director, Postal Services, J&K Postal Circle, Srinagar, 190001.
4. Superintendent, Railway Mail Service, J&K Division, Jammu.

… Respondent(s)
Through: -
Mr Nazir Ahmad Bhat, Advocate.
CORAM:
Hon’ble Mr Justice Sanjeev Kumar, Judge
Hon’ble Mr Justice Puneet Gupta, Judge
(JUDGMENT)
Sanjeev Kumar-J:

01. The Petitioner-Farooq Ahmad Janda, invokes the extraordinary

Writ jurisdiction vested in this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India to seek a ‘Writ of Certiorari’ for quashing an Order and Judgment
dated 16th of March, 2023 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal,
Srinagar Bench [“the Tribunal”] in OA No. 804 of 2020 titled ‘Farooq
Ahmad Janda v. Union of India & Ors.’.
 WP (C) No. 1493/2023
CM No. 3508/2023

Page 2 of 13

02. Briefly stated, the facts leading to the filing of this Petition are
that the Petitioner came to be appointed as Safai Karamchari in the
Department of Posts, Government of India on 20 th of October, 1999.
Indisputably, in terms of the aforesaid Order, the Petitioner was asked to
discharge his duties for a period of 0700 hours to 1500 hours, i.e., for a
period of 08 hours in the area and places indicated in the said Order.
Subsequently, vide Order dated 22nd of August, 2000, issued by the Senior
Post Master, under the orders of the Post Master General, Srinagar, all Safai
Karamcharies, including the Petitioner herein, was posted in RMS office,
SRO and Speed Post Office. On 30th of September, 2005, by another Order,
the Petitioner was ordered to work as Farash in addition to his duties. As is
claimed by the Petitioner, he continued to work in the said capacity for
almost two decades. He approached the Central Administrative Tribunal,
Chandigarh Bench, by way of Original Application bearing OA No.
062/01008/2017, seeking, inter alia, the disposal of his representations
made by him for pay parity with the regular employees holding the post of
Safai Karamcharies as also for regularization of his services. The said OA,
vide Order dated 30th of August, 2017, was disposed of with a direction to
the Respondents to decide the pending representations of the Petitioner.

03. The Respondents considered the representations filed by the

Petitioner and, vide Order dated 9th of February, 2018, impugned in OA No.
804/2020, rejected the claim of the Petitioner for regularization of his
services as well as minimum of the pay scale.

04. In OA No. 804/2020, the Petitioner prayed for the grant of

following relief(s) in his favour:

i. “That impugned order dated 9.2.2018, Annexure A-1, may

kindly be quashed and set aside being wholly illegal and
arbitrary;

ii. That an appropriate writ/ order/ direction commanding upon

the respondents to pay to the applicant minimum of the pay
scale as admissible to the regular incumbents Safai
Karamchari/ Safaiwalla/ Sweeper like other similarly placed
employees and extend him all the consequential/ monetary
 WP (C) No. 1493/2023
CM No. 3508/2023

Page 3 of 13

benefits attached to the post, so as to remove the disparity

amongst them. Accordingly, respondents may also be
directed to pay the applicant minimum of the pay scale +
dearness allowances in accordance with judgment of
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India from the date of initial
appointment and he also been granted difference of arrears
with all consequential benefits along with interest;

iii. That the respondents may be further directed to regularize

the services of the applicant as per Hon’ble Punjab and
Haryana High Court judgment dated 2.3.2015 in the case of
Union of India & Others vs. Central Administrative
Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench & Ors. (CWP No.
9167/CAT/2007);

iv. That this Hon’ble Tribunal may also pass any other order
for the grant of relief to the applicant which it may deem fit
in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case; and

v. That costs of the application may also be awarded in favour

of the applicant.”

05. The aforesaid OA was contested by the Respondents by filing

their Counter Affidavit. It was the stand taken by the Respondents that the
Petitioner was engaged only as a Daily Wager at intervals and has not
worked continuously. It was further submitted that the Petitioner, being a
Daily Wager, cannot compare his services with the regular Group “D”/
MTS employees, as the two are differently situate and form different class.

06. The matter was considered by the Tribunal in the light of the
rival contentions and the material on record. The Tribunal came to the
conclusion that there was no evidence available on record to demonstrate
that the Petitioner was ever appointed on regular basis to perform the duties
of Group “D”/ MTS and, therefore, was not entitled to pay parity with such
regular employees. The contention of the Petitioner that he was entitled to
pay parity on the principle of “equal pay for equal work” was also rejected,
on the ground that equality can be claimed between two equals and not
between unequals. Insofar as the prayer of the Petitioner for regularization
of his services is concerned, the Tribunal held that in the representations
made from time to time, the Petitioner had never sought regularization of
 WP (C) No. 1493/2023
CM No. 3508/2023

Page 4 of 13

his services. Otherwise also, in the absence of any policy decision by the
Respondents and in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in case titled “Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors. v. Umadevi &
Ors.’, reported as (2006) 4 SCC 1, followed by “A. Umarani v. Registrar,
Cooperative Societies”, reported as (2004) 7 SCC 112, the employees
engaged on daily wage or casual basis, without following due process of
recruitment, are not entitled to regularization. The Tribunal, vide the
Judgment and Order impugned, dismissed the OA of the Petitioner.

07. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused
the material on record, we are of the considered opinion that, as is rightly
held by the Tribunal, the Petitioner has failed to demonstrate his case for
regularization of his services.

08. From the material on record, it is nowhere discernible that the

Petitioner was ever engaged after following any due process of recruitment.
He came to be picked up and appointed as a Safai Karamchari on daily
wage basis. It is, however, a fact that he was allowed to continue in service
for more than two decades. There is also no dispute with regard to the fact
that the Petitioner has, all along, performed the duties which a regularly
recruited Safai Karamchari performs in the Respondent-Department.

09. As a matter of fact, some of the daily wage Safai

Karamcharies, who were working with the Petitioner, came to be appointed
on permanent basis against available posts. The reply of the Respondents,
however, is that the colleagues of the Petitioner were appointed on
permanent basis on being selected in a recruitment process. Be that as it
may, the fact remains that the Partitioner has, all along, performed the same
duties which his colleagues, who were earlier working with him on daily
wage basis, have been performing even after their regular appointment.

10. In the backdrop of this admitted factual position, there is no

merit in the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner
that, by rendering more than 20 years continuous service on daily wage
 WP (C) No. 1493/2023
CM No. 3508/2023

Page 5 of 13

basis in the Respondent-Department, the Petitioner has acquired a right of

regularization of his services. The engagement of the Petitioner as Safai
Karamchari on daily wage basis made initially in the year 1999 and
continued thereafter was without any due process of recruitment undertaken
by the Respondents.

11. True it is that keeping in view the need for the services being
rendered by the Petitioner, he was continued in the Respondent Department
for almost two decades. However, in view of the legal position laid down
by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Constitutional Bench Judgment rendered
in Umadevi’s case (supra), followed by A. Umarani’s case (supra), the
engagement of the Petitioner cannot be held to be merely an irregular
appointment. That being the position and also having regard to the fact that
there is no policy of regularization brought to our notice, it is little difficult
for us to accede to the prayer of the Petitioner for regularization of his
services. The Tribunal has, thus, rightly rejected such a prayer made before
it by the Petitioner.

12. We, however, find merit in the submissions made by the

learned Counsel for the Petitioner that the Petitioner is, at least, entitled to
the minimum of the pay scale, without allowances, as is attached and paid
to the regularly appointed Safai Karamcharies/ Group “D”/ MTS
employees working in the Respondent Department. This is so because it is
not disputed before us that the type of duties which the Petitioner has been
performing for the last more than 20 years are, in any manner, different or
inferior than the duties being performed by the regularly appointed Safai
Karamcharies. We understand that a regularly appointed employee has
onerous duties and responsibilities to discharge and, therefore, he is well
compensated by payment of various allowances.

13. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in “State of Punjab & Ors. v.

Jagjit Singh & Ors.”, reported as (2017) 1 SCC 148, has already settled
the issue and held that a Daily Wager or a temporary employee, performing
 WP (C) No. 1493/2023
CM No. 3508/2023

Page 6 of 13

the duties akin to the duties performed by a regular employee, is, at least,
entitled to the basic pay of the regular post.

14. The issue, which has fallen for consideration before us in this
Petition, has already been authoritatively decided by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in Jagjit Singh’s case (supra). Paragraph Nos. 57 and 58 of the said
Judgment read, thus:

“57. There is no room for any doubt, that the principle of

‘equal pay for equal work’ has emerged from an interpretation of
different provisions of the Constitution. The principle has been
expounded through a large number of judgments rendered by this
Court, and constitutes law declared by this Court. The same is
binding on all the courts in India, under Article 141 of the
Constitution of India. The parameters of the principle, have been
summarized by us in paragraph 42 hereinabove. The principle of
‘equal pay for equal work’ has also been extended to temporary
employees (differently described as work-charge, daily-wage,
casual, ad-hoc, contractual, and the like). The legal position, relating
to temporary employees, has been summarized by us, in paragraph
44 hereinabove. The above legal position which has been repeatedly
declared, is being reiterated by us, yet again.

58. In our considered view, it is fallacious to determine

artificial parameters to deny fruits of labour. An employee engaged
for the same work, cannot be paid less than another, who performs
the same duties and responsibilities. Certainly not, in a welfare state.
Such an action besides being demeaning, strikes at the very
foundation of human dignity. Any one, who is compelled to work at
a lesser wage, does not do so voluntarily. He does so, to provide
food and shelter to his family, at the cost of his self-respect and
dignity, at the cost of his self-worth, and at the cost of his integrity.
For he knows, that his dependents would suffer immensely, if he
does not accept the lesser wage. Any act, of paying less wages, as
compared to others similarly situate, constitutes an act of
exploitative enslavement, emerging out of a domineering position.
Undoubtedly, the action is oppressive, suppressive and coercive, as
it compels involuntary subjugation.”

From reading of the aforesaid proposition of law, it clearly

comes out that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has laid down the parameters for
applying the principle of “equal pay for equal work”. The principle of
“equal pay for equal work” has also been extended to temporary employees,
which include a work charge, a daily wage, casual, ad hoc and contractual
employees.
 WP (C) No. 1493/2023
CM No. 3508/2023

Page 7 of 13

15. Further, the legal position has been enunciated and

summarized in Paragraph Nos. 42 and 44 of the Judgment rendered by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jagjit Singh’s case (supra). With a view to
appreciate the legal position better, we deem it appropriate to reproduce
Paragraph Nos. 42 and 44 of the aforesaid Judgment as well, hereinbelow:

“42. All the judgments noticed in paragraphs 7 to 24

hereinabove, pertain to employees engaged on regular basis, who
were claiming higher wages, under the principle of ‘equal pay for
equal work’. The claim raised by such employees was premised on
the ground, that the duties and responsibilities rendered by them,
were against the same post for which a higher pay-scale was being
allowed, in other Government departments. Or alternatively, their
duties and responsibilities were the same, as of other posts with
different designations, but they were placed in a lower scale. Having
been painstakingly taken through the parameters laid down by this
Court, wherein the principle of ‘equal pay for equal work’ was
invoked and considered, it would be just and appropriate, to
delineate the parameters laid down by this Court. In recording the
said parameters, we have also adverted to some other judgments
pertaining to temporary employees (also dealt with, in the instant
judgment), wherein also, this Court had the occasion to express the
legal position with reference to the principle of ‘equal pay for equal
work’. Our consideration, has led us to the following deductions: -

42.1. The ‘onus of proof’, of parity in the duties and

responsibilities of the subject post with the reference post, under the
principle of ‘equal pay for equal work’, lies on the person who
claims it. He who approaches the Court has to establish, that the
subject post occupied by him, requires him to discharge equal work
of equal value, as the reference post (see – the Orissa University of
Agriculture & Technology case10, Union Territory Administration,
Chandigarh v. Manju Mathur15, the Steel Authority of India Limited
case16, and the National Aluminium Company Limited case18).

42.2. The mere fact that the subject post occupied by the
claimant, is in a “different department” vis-a-vis the reference post,
does not have any bearing on the determination of a claim, under the
principle of ‘equal pay for equal work’. Persons discharging
identical duties, cannot be treated differently, in the matter of their
pay, merely because they belong to different departments of
Government (see – the Randhir Singh case and the D.S. Nakara
case).

42.3. The principle of ‘equal pay for equal work’, applies

to cases of unequal scales of pay, based on no classification or
irrational classification (see – the Randhir Singh case). For equal
pay, the concerned employees with whom equation is sought, should
be performing work, which besides being functionally equal, should
be of the same quality and sensitivity (see – the Federation of All
India Customs and Central Excise Stenographers (Recognized) case,
the Mewa Ram Kanojia case, the Grih Kalyan Kendra Workers’
Union cas6 and the S.C. Chandra case).
 WP (C) No. 1493/2023
CM No. 3508/2023

Page 8 of 13

42.4. Persons holding the same rank/designation (in

different departments), but having dissimilar powers, duties and
responsibilities, can be placed in different scales of pay, and cannot
claim the benefit of the principle of ‘equal pay for equal work’ (see –
the Randhir Singh case1, State of Haryana v. Haryana Civil
Secretariat Personal Staff Association9, and the Hukum Chand
Gupta case17). Therefore, the principle would not be automatically
invoked, merely because the subject and reference posts have the
same nomenclature.

42.5. In determining equality of functions and

responsibilities, under the principle of ‘equal pay for equal work’, it
is necessary to keep in mind, that the duties of the two posts should
be of equal sensitivity, and also, qualitatively similar. Differentiation
of pay-scales for posts with difference in degree of responsibility,
reliability and confidentiality, would fall within the realm of valid
classification, and therefore, pay differentiation would be legitimate
and permissible (see – the Federation of All India Customs and
Central Excise Stenographers (Recognized) case and the State Bank
of India case). The nature of work of the subject post should be the
same and not less onerous than the reference post. Even the volume
of work should be the same. And so also, the level of responsibility.
If these parameters are not met, parity cannot be claimed under the
principle of ‘equal pay for equal work’ (see - State of U.P. v. J.P.
Chaurasia, and the Grih Kalyan Kendra Workers’ Union case).

42.6. For placement in a regular pay-scale, the claimant has

to be a regular appointee. The claimant should have been selected,
on the basis of a regular process of recruitment. An employee
appointed on a temporary basis, cannot claim to be placed in the
regular pay-scale (see – the Orissa University of Agriculture &
Technology case).

42.7. Persons performing the same or similar functions,

duties and responsibilities, can also be placed in different pay-scales.
Such as ‘selection grade’, in the same post. But this difference must
emerge out of a legitimate foundation, such as – merit, or seniority,
or some other relevant criteria (see - State of U. P. v. J. P.
Chaurasia.)

42.8. If the qualifications for recruitment to the subject post

vis-a- vis the reference post are different, it may be difficult to
conclude, that the duties and responsibilities of the posts are
qualitatively similar or comparable (see – the Mewa Ram Kanojia
case, and Government of W. B. v. Tarun K. Roy). In such a cause,
the principle of ‘equal pay for equal work’, cannot be invoked.

42.9. The reference post, with which parity is claimed,

under the principle of ‘equal pay for equal work’, has to be at the
same hierarchy in the service, as the subject post. Pay-scales of posts
may be different, if the hierarchy of the posts in question, and their
channels of promotion, are different. Even if the duties and
responsibilities are same, parity would not be permissible, as against
a superior post, such as a promotional post (see - Union of India v.
Pradip Kumar Dey7, and the Hukum Chand Gupta case).
 WP (C) No. 1493/2023
CM No. 3508/2023

Page 9 of 13

42.10. A comparison between the subject post and the

reference post, under the principle of ‘equal pay for equal work’,
cannot be made, where the subject post and the reference post are in
different establishments, having a different management. Or even,
where the establishments are in different geographical locations,
though owned by the same master (see – the Harbans Lal case23).
Persons engaged differently, and being paid out of different funds,
would not be entitled to pay parity (see - Official Liquidator v.
Dayanand).

42.11. Different pay-scales, in certain eventualities, would

be permissible even for posts clubbed together at the same hierarchy
in the cadre. As for instance, if the duties and responsibilities of one
of the posts are more onerous, or are exposed to higher nature of
operational work/risk, the principle of ‘equal pay for equal work’
would not be applicable. And, also when, the reference post includes
the responsibility to take crucial decisions, and that is not so for the
subject post (see – the State Bank of India case).

42.12. The priority given to different types of posts, under

the prevailing policies of the Government, can also be a relevant
factor for placing different posts under different pay-scales. Herein
also, the principle of ‘equal pay for equal work’ would not be
applicable (see - State of Haryana v. Haryana Civil Secretariat
Personal Staff Association).

42.13. The parity in pay, under the principle of ‘equal pay

for equal work’, cannot be claimed, merely on the ground, that at an
earlier point of time, the subject post and the reference post, were
placed in the same pay- scale. The principle of ‘equal pay for equal
work’ is applicable only when it is shown, that the incumbents of the
subject post and the reference post, discharge similar duties and
responsibilities (see - State of West Bengal v. West Bengal
Minimum Wages Inspectors Association).

42.14. For parity in pay-scales, under the principle of ‘equal

pay for equal work’, equation in the nature of duties, is of paramount
importance. If the principal nature of duties of one post is teaching,
whereas that of the other is non-teaching, the principle would not be
applicable. If the dominant nature of duties of one post is of control
and management, whereas the subject post has no such duties, the
principle would not be applicable. Likewise, if the central nature of
duties of one post is of quality control, whereas the subject post has
minimal duties of quality control, the principle would not be
applicable (see - Union Territory Administration, Chandigarh v.
Manju Mathur).

42.15. There can be a valid classification in the matter of

pay-scales, between employees even holding posts with the same
nomenclature i.e., between those discharging duties at the
headquarters, and others working at the institutional/sub-office level
(see – the Hukum Chand Gupta case), when the duties are
qualitatively dissimilar.

42.16. The principle of ‘equal pay for equal work’ would not
be applicable, where a differential higher pay-scale is extended to
persons discharging the same duties and holding the same
 WP (C) No. 1493/2023
CM No. 3508/2023

Page 10 of 13

designation, with the objective of ameliorating stagnation, or on

account of lack of promotional avenues (see – the Hukum Chand
Gupta case).

42.17. Where there is no comparison between one set of

employees of one organization, and another set of employees of a
different organization, there can be no question of equation of pay-
scales, under the principle of ‘equal pay for equal work’, even if two
organizations have a common employer. Likewise, if the
management and control of two organizations, is with different
entities, which are independent of one another, the principle of
‘equal pay for equal work’ would not apply (see – the S. C. Chandra
case, and the National Aluminium Company Limited case).

43. ………

44. We shall first outline the conclusions drawn in cases

where a claim for pay parity, raised at the hands of the concerned
temporary employees, was accepted by this Court, by applying the
principle of ‘equal pay for equal work’, with reference to regular
employees: -

44.1. In the Dhirendra Chamoli case, this Court examined a

claim for pay parity raised by temporary employees, for wages equal
to those being disbursed to regular employees. The prayer was
accepted. The action of not paying the same wage, despite the work
being the same, was considered as violative of Article 14 of the
Constitution. It was held, that the action amounted to exploitation –
in a welfare state committed to a socialist pattern of society.

44.2. In the Surinder Singh case, this Court held, that the
right of equal wages claimed by temporary employees emerged, inter
alia, from Article 39 of the Constitution. The principle of ‘equal pay
for equal work’ was again applied, where the subject employee had
been appointed on temporary basis, and the reference employee was
borne on the permanent establishment. The temporary employee was
held entitled to wages drawn by an employee on the regular
establishment. In this judgment, this Court also took note of the fact,
that the above proposition was affirmed by a Constitution Bench of
this Court, in the D. S. Nakara case.

44.3. In the Bhagwan Dass case, this Court recorded, that

in a claim for equal wages, the duration for which an employee
would remain (- or had remained) engaged, would not make any
difference. So also, the manner of selection and appointment would
make no difference. And therefore, whether the selection was made
on the basis of open competition or was limited to a cluster of
villages, was considered inconsequential, insofar as the applicability
of the principle is concerned. And likewise, whether the appointment
was for a fixed limited duration (six months, or one year), or for an
unlimited duration, was also considered inconsequential, insofar as
the applicability of the principle of ‘equal pay for equal work’ is
concerned. It was held, that the claim for equal wages would be
sustainable, where an employee is required to discharge similar
duties and responsibilities as regular employees, and the concerned
employee possesses the qualifications prescribed for the post. In the
above case, this Court rejected the contention advanced on behalf of
 WP (C) No. 1493/2023
CM No. 3508/2023

Page 11 of 13

the Government, that the plea of equal wages by the employees in

question, was not sustainable because the concerned employees were
engaged in a temporary scheme, and against posts which were
sanctioned on a year to year basis.

44.4. In the Daily Rated Casual Labour Employed under

P&T Department through Bhartiya Dak Tar Mazdoor Manch case22
this Court held, that under principle flowing from Article 38(2) of
the Constitution, Government could not deny a temporary employee,
at least the minimum wage being paid to an employee in the
corresponding regular cadre, along with dearness allowance and
additional dearness allowance, as well as, all the other benefits
which were being extended to casual workers. It was also held, that
the classification of workers (as unskilled, semi-skilled and skilled),
doing the same work, into different categories, for payment of wages
at different rates, was not tenable. It was also held, that such an act
of an employer, would amount to exploitation. And further that, the
same would be arbitrary and discriminatory, and therefore, violative
of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

44.5. In State of Punjab v. Devinder Singh, this Court held,

that daily- wagers were entitled to be placed in the minimum of the
pay-scale of regular employees, working against the same post. The
above direction was issued after accepting, that the concerned
employees, were doing the same work as regular incumbents holding
the same post, by applying the principle of ‘equal pay for equal
work’.

44.6. In the Secretary, State of Karnataka case, a

Constitution Bench of this Court, set aside the judgment of the High
Court, and directed that daily-wagers be paid salary equal to the
lowest grade of salary and allowances being paid to regular
employees. Importantly, in this case, this Court made a very
important distinction between pay parity and regularization. It was
held that the concept of equality would not be applicable to issues of
absorption/regularization. But, the concept was held as applicable,
and was indeed applied, to the issue of pay parity – if the work
component was the same. The judgment rendered by the High Court,
was modified by this Court, and the concerned daily-wage
employees were directed to be paid wages, equal to the salary at the
lowest grade of the concerned cadre.

44.7. In State of Haryana v. Charanjit Singh, a three-Judge

bench of this Court held, that the decisions rendered by this Court
in State of Haryana v. Jasmer Singh, State of Haryana v. Tilak Raj,
the Orissa University of Agriculture & Technology case
and Government of W.B. v. Tarun K. Roy, laid down the correct
law. Thereupon, this Court declared, that if the concerned daily-
wage employees could establish, that they were performing equal
work of equal quality, and all other relevant factors were fulfilled, a
direction by a Court to pay such employees equal wages (from the
date of filing the writ petition), would be justified.

44.8. In State of U.P. v. Putti Lal, based on decisions in

several cases (wherein the principle of ‘equal pay for equal work’
had been invoked), it was held, that a daily-wager discharging
similar duties, as those engaged on regular basis, would be entitled
 WP (C) No. 1493/2023
CM No. 3508/2023

Page 12 of 13

to draw his wages at the minimum of the pay-scale (drawn by his

counterpart, appointed on regular basis), but would not be entitled to
any other allowances or increments.

44.9. In the Uttar Pradesh Land Development Corporation

case33 this Court noticed, that the respondents were employed on
contract basis, on a consolidated salary. But, because they were
actually appointed to perform the work of the post of Assistant
Engineer, this Court directed the employer to pay the respondents
wages, in the minimum of the pay-scales ascribed for the post of
Assistant Engineer.”

When we analyze the facts of the instant case in the light of the
law laid down in Jagjit Singh’s case (supra), we find that the Petitioner is
fully covered by the observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court made in
Paragraph Nos. 57 and 58. The Petitioner, who was engaged for the work,
cannot be paid less than the ones who perform the same duties and
responsibilities, may be while working on regular basis. In the instant case,
as noticed above, some of the Safai Karamcharies, who were working
along with the Petitioner on daily wage basis, were regularly appointed by
the Respondents, albeit after proper selection process, are receiving a
regular pay scale. The Petitioner, who has been performing the same duties
as are being performed by the aforesaid Safai Karamcharies, now working
on permanent basis in the graded pay scale, cannot be denied the basic of
the pay scale of the lowest grade of Safai Karamcharies.

16. For the aforesaid reasons, we allow this Petition partially and
hold the Petitioner entitled to the basic pay in the lowest grade, as is
available to the Safai Karamcharies/ Group “D”/ MTS employees working
in the Respondent Department. This benefit shall be available to the
Petitioner w.e.f. the date the first OA bearing No. 062/01008/2017 was filed
by him before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench. The
Respondents shall comply with the directions aforesaid and work out and
pay the arrears thereof to the Petitioner within two months from the date a
copy of this Judgment is served upon them. They shall do well to pay to the
Petitioner immediately and forthwith the basic pay of the post of Safai
 WP (C) No. 1493/2023
CM No. 3508/2023

Page 13 of 13

Karamcharies/ Group “D”/ MTF employees. The impugned Order passed

by the Tribunal shall stand modified to the said extent, accordingly.

17. Writ Petition is, accordingly, disposed of on the above terms,

along with the connected CM(s).

(Puneet Gupta) (Sanjeev Kumar)

Judge Judge
SRINAGAR
March 1st, 2025
“TAHIR”
i. Whether the Judgment is approved for reporting? Yes.

Tahir Manzoor Bhat

I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
document