Finally, referring to the decision of Jagjit Singh
(supra) Hon‟ble Supreme Court held that the appellants were
entitled to be paid the minimum of the pay scale.
[6] In the case of Smt. Suchitra Malakar vs. State of
Tripura and others, W.A. No.134 of 2024, decided on
05.11.2025, the claim of the petitioner for minimum of the
regular pay scale to a Daily Rated Worker (for short, DRW)
working in the Public Works Department (R&B), Government of
Tripura was turned down by the learned Single Judge on the
sole ground that she had been appointed illegally without
following normal rules of public employment and holding that
she cannot be equated to the employees who had been
appointed in terms of Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of
India. The Division Bench set aside the judgment of the learned
Single Judge, relying on the decision of Jagjit Singh (supra)
and held that the petitioner was entitled to the wages at the
minimum of the pay scale (at the lowest grade in the regular
pay scale extended to regular employees holding the Group-D
post).
[7] Mr. D. Sarma, learned Addl. G.A. appearing for the
state-respondent in W.P.(C) No.704 of 2024 submits that the
petitioner of said writ petition was a contingent driver and was
meant for doing any kind of work whenever entrusted and for
getting the benefit of pay parity he should have to acquire
similar qualification like regular employees and shall have to
undergo regular recruitment process and then only he can enjoy
the similar benefits like a regular employee.
[8] Learned Addl. G.A. also relies on the following
decisions:
(i) In the case of Harbans Lal and others vs. State
of Himachal Pradesh and others, (1989) 4 SCC 459, the
petitioners were the carpenters 1st and 2nd grade employed at
the Wood Working Centre of the Himachal Pradesh State
Handicraft Corporation. They were termed as daily rated
employees. They sought for enforcement of their fundamental
right to have "equal pay for equal work" in terms as paid to
their counterparts in their regular services. They wanted the
same pay of regular employees as carpenters or in the
alternative, the minimum wages prescribed by the Deputy
Commissioner for like categories of workmen.
The Corporation has clearly stated in their counter
affidavit that there were no regular employee of the petitioners'
categories in their establishment and, as such, the payment to
the petitioners, of the pay admissible to regular employee was
not permissible.
Hon‟ble Supreme Court found that the Corporation
was running in loss and even to minimize the further loss, they
reduced their staff strength in the production centers and, it was
also observed by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court that the petitioners
were not entitled to enforce the right under "equal pay for equal
work" as to apply such principle, the discrimination complained
of must be within the same establishment owned by the same
management. But there the petitioners were claiming wages
payable to the carpenters working in government service. It
was also further observed that a comparison cannot be made
with counterparts in other establishments with different
management, or even in establishments in different
geographical locations though owned by the same master and
unless it is shown that there was a discrimination amongst the
same set of employees by the same master in the same
establishment, the principle of "equal pay for equal work" could
not be enforced.
While refusing the claim of minimum wages as
prescribed by the Deputy Commissioner, it was also observed
that said minimum wages were fixed by the Deputy
Commissioner for the skilled and unskilled workers in
Government service and the said notification was not extended
to employees of the Corporation. It appears that this decision of
Hon‟ble Supreme Court was rendered in a complete different
context.
(ii) In the case of Ghaziabad Development
Authority and others vs. Vikram Chaudhary and others,
(1995) 5 SCC 210, the appellants, Ghaziabad Development
Authority in its planned development of urban areas, pursuant
to U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973, engaged
the respondents on daily wages in the project on hand. But the
respondents filed a writ petition claiming parity in appointment
and pay with the regular employees and also for regularization
of their services. In that contexts, it was observed by the
Hon‟ble Supreme Court that the appellant needed to take the
services of the persons according to the requirement in the
projects on hand and if on completion of the existing projects in
which the respondents were working, the appellant undertook
any fresh project, in that case, instead of taking the services of
fresh hands at the place of their new project, the appellant
should take the services of the existing temporary daily wage
workers. In the event of the appellant not having any project on
hand, the obligation to pay daily wages to the daily wage
workers did not arise. Therefore, it was further held that since
those respondents were temporary daily wage employees, so
long as there were no regular posts available for appointment,
the question of making pay on a par with the regular employees
did not arise. But the appellant should necessarily and by
implication, pay the minimum wages prescribed under the
statute, if any, or the prevailing wages as available in the
locality. The fact of the present case also similarly differs with
the fact of the present writ petitions in hand.
(iii) Though learned Addl. G.A., Mr. Sarma, relies on
State of Haryana and others vs. Jasmer Singh and others,
(1996) 11 SCC 77, but said Jagjit Singh (supra) which was a
later decision, distinguished the decision of Jasmer Singh
(supra) and observed that the said judgment is required to be
examined and explained independently. At paragraph no.46.9 of
Jagjit Singh (supra), it was also observed that it was not
necessary for the Bench to refer the matter for adjudication to a
larger bench, because the judgment in Jasmer Singh (supra),
was irreconcilable and inconsistent with a large number of
judgments, some of which were of larger benches, where the
benefit of the principle in question was extended to temporary
employees (including daily-wagers). This being the position, the
decision of Jasmer Singh (supra) is not further elaborated
herein.
(iv) Mr. Sarma, learned Addl. G.A. also relies on a
decision of the Division Bench of this Court in case of Sri
Sukradhan Chakma and others vs. the State of Tripura
and others, W.A. No.10 of 2023, decided on 05.03.2024 where
the petitioners sought for regularization and absorption in
service which was rejected by the learned Single Judge as there
was no policy of Government existent for absorption.
(v) In appeal before the Division Bench, the
appellants contended that they became entitled for
regularization as Group-D employee with effect from the date
when they had completed 10 years of service as DRW and they
were having requisite qualifications of a Group-D employee and
they were discharging duties beyond 8 hours per day. They also
claimed that they were entitled to minimum wages as per
Minimum Wages Act, 1956. The Division Bench ultimately
upheld the judgment of the learned Writ Court holding that the
scheme as formulated by the State for regularization in terms of
the direction of Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of
Secretary, State of Karnataka and others vs. Umadevi (3),
(2006) 4 SCC 1, was already withdrawn by the State and the
regularization or absorption could only be made against the
sanctioned vacant post. Ultimately, their claim for regularization
was not accepted by the Division Bench. In the said case, there
was no claim for minimum of the pay scale of regular employee
and the claim of the appellants regarding minimum wages as
per Minimum Wages Act, 1956 was also not specifically
discussed in the said judgment.
[9] Mr. K. De, learned Addl. G.A. appearing for the state-
respondents in W.P.(C) No.705 of 2024 also made similar
submissions, like Mr. Sarma, learned Addl. G.A., Mr. De, learned
Addl. G.A. also relies on a decision of the Hon‟ble Supreme court
in the case of S.C. Chandra and others vs. State of
Jharkhand and others, (2007) 8 SCC 279. In the said
decision, in one appeal, the writ petitioner approached before
the High Court of Jharkhand for a direction to fix their pay scale
on a par with the pay scale of Government Secondary School
teachers or on a par with Grade I and II Clerks of the
respondent-Bharat Coking Coal Limited [for short, the BCCL].
They also prayed that the facilities such as provident fund,
gratuity, pension and other retiral benefits should also be made
available to them and the State Government should take over
the management of their school, namely Ram Kanali School
under the provisions of the Bihar Non-Government Secondary
Schools (Taking over of Management and Control) Act, 1981. In
the said case, the Bharat Coking Coal Limited [for short, the
BCCL] contended that the said Ram Kanali School was not
owned by the BCCL, rather it was run by the Managing
Committee and the writ petitioners were never appointed by the
BCCL and therefore, they were not the employees of BCCL.
According to them, they used to release non-recurring grants to
the privately managed schools on the recommendation of the
Welfare Committee subject to certain conditions and such
release of non-recurring grant-in-aid did not make the school a
part of the management of BCCL and therefore, any teacher in
such privately managed school could not be said to be the
employee of BCCL thereby entitling them all benefits as are
available to the regular employees of BCCL.
Learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition and
directed that the teachers of the said school were entitled to the
pay scale given to the clerks working in the BCCL with effect
from the date of the judgment with all consequential benefits
but did not issue any direction for taking over of the said school
by State of Jharkhand. The Division Bench in appeal came to the
conclusion that the incumbents were not entitled to the pay
scale of the employees of BCCL or equivalent to the Government
employees and accordingly, set aside the order of the learned
Single Judge.
Hon‟ble Supreme Court finally endorsed the view of
the Division Bench to be correct view on the ground that the
school was not being managed by BCCL, rather they were
extending only financial assistance to the said school and
therefore, they could not be saddled with the liability to pay
these teachers of the school as being paid to the clerks working
with BCCL or in the Government of Jharkhand.
[10] In the supplementary note, His Lordship, Hon‟ble Mr.
Justice Markandey Katju concurring with the view of His
Lordship Hon‟ble Mr. Justice A.K. Mathur, who authored the
judgment, and keeping in view of the above said facts of the
case, at paragraph no.26 observed the followings:
26. Fixation of pay scale is a delicate mechanism which
requires various considerations including financial
capacity, responsibility, educational qualification, mode
of appointment, etc. and it has a cascading effect. Hence,
in subsequent decisions of this Court the principle of
equal pay for equal work has been considerably watered
down, and it has hardly ever been applied by this Court in
recent years.
As it appears that the said judgment was also passed
completely in a different factual matrix.
[11] I have considered the submissions of both sides and
have taken due consideration to the materials placed in the
records and the above said decisions as relied upon by the
parties.
[12] It is not disputed that the petitioner of W.P.(C)
No.704 of 2024, Sri Amaresh Debbarma was engaged as
contingent driver w.e.f. 16.11.2009 and the petitioner of
W.P.(C) No.705 of 2024, Sri Prahllad Debbarma was engaged as
Peon-cum-Night Guard w.e.f. 01.12.1994 and since then they
have been working under the control of DM & Collector, Khowai
till date. Though the petitioner of W.P.(C) No.704 of 2024, Sri
Amaresh Debbarma has claimed for minimum of pay scale of
driver (Group-C) but in the document relied upon by him under
Annexure-4 i.e. the letter dated 12.10.2012 of the DM &
Collector, Khowai his designation has been mentioned as Driver
(Group-D) and not Driver (Group-C). It is also true that for
more than a decade they are discharging their duties to the
satisfaction of the authorities of similar nature like other Group-
D employees which are of perennial nature and related to day to
day official functions. Though from time to time their wages
were enhanced by the respondents but such enhancement will
not meet up the constitutional principle of "equal pay for equal
work".
[13] It is clearly discernible that both the petitioners are
performing and discharging similar duties like other
counterparts in the regular services. In Jagjit Singh (supra) it
is clearly observed by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court that it would
be fallacious to determine artificial parameters to deny the fruit
of the labour. An employee engaged for same work cannot be
paid in less amount then another who performed the same
duties and responsibilities.
[14] Earlier thereto, in Putti Lal (supra) also, Hon‟ble
Supreme Court clearly observed that the principle of "equal pay
for equal work" would be applicable when a daily wager is
discharging the similar duties like those who are in regular
employment in the Government and they should receive the
minimum of the pay scale without any increment or allowances.
[15] In view of the above position of law and considering
the facts of the case relating to both the writ petitions, it is held
that both of them are entitled to get the minimum of the pay
scale as meant for a Group-D employee without any increment
or allowance.
[16] Both the petitioners have approached this Court in a
very belated manner. Considering thus, the respondents are
directed to extend the benefit of minimum of the pay scale of a
Group-D employee to both the petitioners from the period
preceding 3[three] years from the date of filing of their
respective writ petitions. Arrears should be paid within 3[three]
months from the date of receipt of the copy of this judgment
and order.
With such observations and directions, both these
writ petitions are allowed and accordingly, disposed of.
Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand
disposed of.
JUDGE
SUJAY GHOSH Digitally signed by SUJAY GHOSH
Date: 2026.01.20 18:11:57 +05'30'
Sujay
