STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS. versus JASMER SINGH AND ORS.

Citation: [1996] SUPP. 8 S.C.R. 592 · Decided: 07-11-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.M. AHMADI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

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 of work performed 
by different persons holding different jobs-Unless there were ma/a fides, 
D evaluation by expert bodies must be accepted-Constitution of India, 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 
G 
preferred the present appeal. 
· 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
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 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.