Jharkhand High Court
Bimal Kumar Thakur vs The State Of Jharkhand on 23 June, 2025
Author: Deepak Roshan
Bench: Deepak Roshan
2025:JHHC:16622
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(S). No. 5513 of 2019
----------
Bimal Kumar Thakur, aged about 50 years, son of late, Anugrah Thakur,
resident of Zila School, PaniTanki, P.O. G.P.O. (General Post Office), P.S.
Kotwali, District Ranchi. .... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand.
2. Secretary, Drinking Water and Sanitation Department, Govt. of Jharkhand,
Nepal House, Doranda, P.O. and P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi.
3. The Engineer-in-Chief, Drinking Water and Sanitation Department, Govt.
of Jharkhand, Nepal House, Doranda, P.O. and P.S. Doranda, District
Ranchi.
4. The Regional Chief Engineer, Drinking Water and Sanitation Department,
Govt. of Jharkhand, Nepal House, Doranda, P.O. and P.S. Doranda, District
Ranchi.
5. The Superintending Engineer, Drinking Water and Sanitation Department,
Govt. of Jharkhand, Nepal House, Doranda, P.O. and P.S. Doranda, District
Ranchi.
6. The Executive Engineer, Drinking Water and Sanitation Department, Govt.
of Jharkhand, Swarnrekha Distribution Division, Booty, P.O. Booty More,
P.S. Bariyatu, District Ranchi.
7. The Assistant Engineer, Drinking Water and Sanitation Department, Govt.
of Jharkhand, Swarnrekha Distribution Division, Booty, P.O. Booty More,
P.S. Bariyatu, District Ranchi
.......... Respondents.
----------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN
-----------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Saurabh Shekhar, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. Ashok Kr. Singh, AC to SC(L&C)-III
----------
C.A.V. on 05.05.2025 Pronounced on 23/06/2025
Heard the parties.
2. The present writ application has been preferred by the petitioner,
praying, inter alia, for quashing of the order, as contained in letter no.313
dated 18.09.2017 (Annexure-17); wherein the claim of the petitioner for
regularization of his services, as also for the grant of benefit of minimum of
regular pay-scale, has been denied and rejected. The petitioner has also
prayed for a writ in the nature of mandamus seeking to command upon the
Respondents to regularize him.
2025:JHHC:16622
Thereafter, one Interlocutory Application was filed, being I.A. No.130
of 2021, seeking to amend/add one prayer, being prayer no.(iv), which
relates to seeking writ in the nature of mandamus to command upon the
Respondents to grant minimum of regular pay-scale to the petitioner and to
quash the order dated 18.09.2017 only to the extent whereby minimum of
pay scale has been denied to petitioner.
3. The factual matrix of the case, as per the pleadings is that the petitioner
was engaged as Pump Operator on daily wages, in the year 1985. The
payments were received by him, on the hand receipt pattern. As per the
impugned order, the petitioner was engaged as daily rated employee and
worked with certain gaps. Thereafter, around the year 2011, his service was
given over to one outsourcing company, and at present, it is through the
outsourcing company that the petitioner is rendering his duty for the
respondent department.
4. It is not in dispute that the petitioner, though, is now working through
the outsourcing company, but at the same time, his duties are discharged to
the respondent department. In other words, the duties being performed by the
petitioner are in relation to the work of the respondent department.
5. It is relevant to mention that the petitioner had come before this Court
in earlier round of litigation, being W.P.(S) No.974 of 2016. Therein, prayer
was made for regularization of the services of the petitioner, and the matter
was remitted to the respondent authorities to take decision, vide order dated
28.06.2016. It was observed in the said order that if the petitioner is similarly
situated with that of Pasupati Shukla and others, petitioner is also entitled to
get the same benefit. This apart, there was a claim of regularization of his
services. Therefore, the remand of the matter was also with a direction to
consider the case of the petitioner, compared to that of similarly situated
employees.
6. The matter was presented before the respondent authorities, and they
passed the impugned order dated 18.09.2017, wherein, the claim of
regularization was rejected saying that the services of the petitioner were
engaged with intermittent gaps, further, there is no sanctioned post, and at
2025:JHHC:16622
present, the petitioner is employed through an outsourcing company.
7. Thereafter, the Respondents also took-up the point wherein his claim
for minimum of regular pay-scale was considered and rejected. The primary
reason of rejection was that the petitioner is not similarly situated, as
compared to that of one Pashupati Nath Shukla, who was getting the benefit
of minimum of regular pay-scale. The point of difference between the two
employees was shown that the present petitioner is working through
outsourcing company; whereas, the said Pashupati Nath Shukla had been
engaged and was working directly as daily wager, for the department. The
service of said Pashupati Nath Shukla was also continuous while working as
daily wager, but that is absent in the case of the present petitioner. The above
two reasons were the only counts on which, the claim of the petitioner for
grant of minimum of regular pay-scale has been rejected.
8. As far as the case of the petitioner for regularization is concerned;
certainly, the same is not tenable for the reason that he was not engaged
against the vacant sanctioned post, further, the respondents have stated that
there were intermittent gaps in the performance of his services. These two
grounds are good enough to reject the claim of the petitioner for
regularization of his services in permanent establishment.
As such, as far as the first prayer for commanding upon the
respondents to regularize the services of the petitioner in permanent
establishment is concerned; the same requires no interference by this Court.
9. In the same breadth, it is also to be indicated that the second claim of
the petitioner, which relates to his demand for minimum of regular
pay-scale, it has merit, and requires consideration and therefore, the nature
of employment, services performed and remuneration being received by the
petitioner requires some deliberation.
10. The respondents while rejecting the claim of the petitioner for grant of
minimum of regular pay-scale, have not made out a case that the petitioner is
not performing the same nature of work and, may be, therefore he is not
receiving equivalent salary to that of the employees in the regular cadre, or a
minimum of it.
2025:JHHC:16622
11. It is to be borne in mind that the principle that is applied in finding an
employee eligible to get the benefit of minimum of regular pay-scale is very
simple and is based on and gets its relevance from the principle of 'Equal
Pay for Equal Work'. It is not the case of the respondents in the impugned
order that the petitioner is not performing the same nature of work, as
compared to that of the regular cadre employees. The impugned order only
suggests that the minimum of pay-scale is denied for the reason that the
petitioner is not similarly situated to that of Pashupati Nath Shukla, who in
turn, was a daily wager employee and was continuously working for the
respondents.
12. This, however, cannot be a ground to reject the claim of minimum of
regular pay-scale in case of the present petitioner. For similar nature of
services performed by the Petitioner, compared to that of a regular
employee, despite of how he has been engaged, the principle of 'Equal Pay
for Equal Work'should apply.
On perusal of the impugned order, an impression is carried out that
this position in law is not disputed. Therefore, the claim of grant of benefit of
minimum of pay-scale, equivalent to the lowest cadre of regular service,
should have been permitted by the respondents.
13. Though, in view of the above discussions, the entire issue with regards
to the minimum of pay-scale, equivalent to the lowest cadre of regular
service and the benefit of minimum of pay-scale would have been easily
enhanced in favour of the petitioner; but in the present case, there is one
more ground that has been stressed, as to be the de-merit of the case, by the
respondent authorities. It is that the petitioner is an employee engaged
through outsourced company.
To elaborate further on this point, it is indeed needed to see that the
petitioner was initially engaged in daily wages, the respondents usually
follow the practice of grant of minimum of regular pay-scale to such
employees.
2025:JHHC:16622
14. The case of the petitioner may seem different to them, may be for the
reason that after rendering services for almost twenty-five (25) years, as
daily wager, he was given to outsourcing company; but even thereafter the
nature of services has not changed. The petitioner is still performing his
duties for respondent authorities, though, through an outsourcing company.
The factual circumstances would suggest that though, the petitioner's
payment is now being done through the outsourcing company and the
respondents claim not to be the direct master of the petitioner, but the duties
still are being performed by the petitioner for the respondent
authorities/department. The mode of payment of wages, which was earlier
done by the respondent authorities to the petitioner, has now changed the
hands and the payment is now being made through the outsourcing
company. In other words, the payment of wages, though is indirect, but the
services being performed by the petitioner for the respondents is direct.
15. Having regard to the aforesaid factual scenario; it is to be tested
whether the window of Article-14 of the Constitution of India is open to the
petitioner under such circumstances. It is evident that the petitioner is
performing his work, which is undeniably reaching the ends of
respondent-state authorities. Further, the nature of work has not been
disputed to be the same as that of the employees of regular cadre.
One can understand that under such circumstances, services of the
employees could not be regularized, as it has to pass the test of eligibility, as
per the educational qualification and availability of vacant sanctioned post,
but to say that the employee is forced to suffer lower wages for performing a
duty, that is remunerated highly in case of a regular employee, would
certainly fall against the tenets of Article-14 of the Constitution of India. It is
admittedly arbitrary to engage an employee and pay him less, more
specifically, when others performing the same job are being paid highly.
16. The issue that the petitioner will not be getting the minimum
pay-scale, equivalent to the lowest cadre of regular employee, only for the
reason that he is employed through outsourcing company, though he is
performing same nature of work as a regular employee, does not appeal to
logic, and would amount to not doing substantial justice and taking undue
2025:JHHC:16622
advantage of the technicalities of the situation that the petitioner is facing in
the present case.
17. The facts of the present case have to be decided on the settled
principle, that has been laid down by the Hon'ble Courts in catena of
judgments; holding that the principle of 'Equal Pay for Equal Work' also
applies in the case of ad-hoc and 'like' members of the department. The
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab &Ors, versus Jagjit
Singh1, has reiterated what has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
several judgments, that all employees, who are of ad-hoc nature, inclusive of
other employees who are similar to them, will be entitled to get the benefit of
minimum of pay-scale, premising its verdict on the principle of 'Equal Pay
for Equal Work'.
The Hon'ble Court held that the principle of 'Equal Pay for Equal
Work' in such case is not applicable in totality, but limited to the extent of
payment of minimum of pay-scale, relief should be granted.
18. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jagjit Singh (supra) has
mentioned the entire range of employees who are generally engaged on
temporary basis by the State authorities, mentioned within the parenthesis,
and has specifically used the term 'and the like'. This means the likes of daily
wage employees, ad-hoc appointees, employees engaged on casual basis,
contractual appointees; all would be understood to fall in the category of
temporary employees, particularly for grant of the benefit of minimum of
regular pay-scale. The term 'temporary employee' as used by the Hon'ble
Apex Court is thus inclusive, which would clearly mean to include
outsourced employees within its fold.
19. As stated hereinabove, in the present case, it is not disputed that the
petitioner is performing the same work as outsourced employee, to which he
was performing as daily wager prior to the year 2011 i.e. for more than 25
years. Therefore, the employment of the petitioner is comparable to that of
the daily wager (who are already receiving minimum pay scale) and the
nature of work is also the same. Under such circumstances, the determining
and conclusive factor is the nature of employment and work performed by
2017 (1) SCC 148
2025:JHHC:16622
the petitioner for the respondent authorities, comparable with regular
workers, or other daily wagers who are receiving minimum of pay scale,
even though, the manner in which payment is done to the Petitioner i.e.
indirectly through the outsourcing company, it does not matter.
For ready reference the relevant paragraphs judgment rendered in the
case of Jagjit Singh (supra) are being produced herein below:-
"6. The issue which has arisen for consideration in the present set of appeals,
necessitates a bird's-eye view on the legal position declared by this Court, on
the underlying ingredients, which govern the principle of "equal pay for equal
work". It is also necessary for resolving the controversy to determine the
manner in which this Court has extended the benefit of "minimum of the
regular pay scale" along with Dearness Allowance, as revised from time to
time, to temporary employees (engaged on daily-wage basis, as ad hoc
appointees, as employees engaged on casual basis, as contract appointees,
and the like). For the aforesaid purpose, we shall, examine the above issue, in
two stages. We shall first examine situations where the principle of "equal pay
for equal work" has been extended to employees engaged on regular basis.
And thereafter, how the same has been applied with reference to different
categories of temporary employees."
43. We shall now venture to summarize the conclusions recorded by this Court,
with reference to a claim of pay parity, raised by temporary employees
(differently designated as work-charge, daily-wage, casual, ad-hoc,
contractual, and the like), in the following two paragraphs."
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 para 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 para 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. Anyone, 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.
60. Having traversed the legal parameters with reference to the application of the
principle of "equal pay for equal work", in relation to temporary employees
(daily-wage employees, ad-hoc appointees, employees appointed on casual
basis, contractual employees and the like), the sole factor that requires our
determination is, whether the employees concerned (before this Court), were
rendering similar duties and responsibilities as were being discharged by
regular employees holding the same/corresponding posts. This exercise would
require the application of the parameters of the principle of "equal pay for
2025:JHHC:16622
equal work" summarized by us in para 42 above. However, insofar as the
instant aspect of the matter is concerned, it is not difficult for us to record the
factual position. We say so, because it was fairly acknowledged by the learned
counsel representing the State of Punjab, that all the temporary employees in
the present bunch of appeals were appointed against posts which were also
available in the regular cadre/establishment. It was also accepted that during
the course of their employment, the temporary employees concerned were
being randomly deputed to discharge duties and responsibilities which at
some point in time were assigned to regular employees. Likewise, regular
employees holding substantive posts were also posted to discharge the same
work which was assigned to temporary employees from time to time. There is,
therefore, no room for any doubt, that the duties and responsibilities
discharged by the temporary employees in the present set of appeals were the
same as were being discharged by regular employees. It is not the case of the
appellants, that the respondent employees did not possess the qualifications
prescribed for appointment on regular basis. Furthermore, it is not the case of
the State that any of the temporary employees would not be entitled to pay
parity on any of the principles summarized by us in para 42 hereinabove.
There can be no doubt, that the principle of "equal pay for equal work" would
be applicable to all the temporary employees concerned, so as to vest in them
the right to claim wages on a par with the minimum of the pay scale of
regularly engaged government employees holding the same post.
61. In view of the position expressed by us in the foregoing paragraph, we have
no hesitation in holding that all the temporary employees concerned, in the
present bunch of cases would be entitled to draw wages at the minimum of the
pay scale (at the lowest grade, in the regular pay scale), extended to regular
employees holding the same post."
Emphasis Supplied
20. After perusing the aforesaid judgment, it is crystal clear that the
common thread of identity that runs in all the temporary designations that
has been described by the Court, so as to ascertain, what would fall within
the zone of the term 'the like'. In all the engagements, i.e. work charge, daily
wage, casual, ad-hoc, contractual, what is common is that they are not
regular and therefore, they have to suffer lesser salary, unpredictable service
conditions, lesser pay structure, no guarantee of continuity, etc.
These all ingredients find coherence in the case of outsourced
employees as well. Therefore, it can be safely ascertained the inclusive
meaning of temporary employees, reflected by the use of term 'the like' by
the Hon'ble Apex Court, would comfortably include the employment and the
engagement of the petitioner as outsourced employee.
21. In view of the above discussions made as well ratio laid down by the
Apex Court in the case of Jagjit Singh(Supra), impugned order dated
18.09.2017, is hereby, quashed and set aside to the extent whereby
minimum of pay scale has been denied to the petitioner and the concerned
respondent is directed to grant the benefit of minimum of pay-scale to the
2025:JHHC:16622
petitioner (at the lowest grade, in the regular pay-scale) extended to regular
employees, along with dearness allowance.
22. In view of aforesaid observation and direction this Writ application
stands allowed. Pending I.A., if any, also stand disposed of.
(Deepak Roshan, J.)
kunal/-
AFR
