Regularisation and equal pay for equal work may follow from long continuous service and similar duties in daily-rated employment.

Long and continuous service by daily-rated workmen, together with practical experience, may justify regularisation and phased confirmation even where the prescribed educational qualification was absent at initial entry; the text treats denial of confirmation solely on that ground as harsh and unjust. It also applies the principle of equal pay for equal work where workmen perform the same or similar duties as regular employees, supporting parity in wages and allowances, promotional avenues for eligible workers, and reinstatement of retrenched workmen. The analysis further notes that short artificial breaks should be ignored when assessing continuity of service.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether daily-rated workmen who had rendered long and continuous service could be regularised and confirmed in service despite the absence of the prescribed educational qualifications at the initial stage; (ii) whether the petitioners were entitled to equal pay for equal work and consequential service benefits, including reinstatement of the retrenched workmen.

Issue (i): whether daily-rated workmen who had rendered long and continuous service could be regularised and confirmed in service despite the absence of the prescribed educational qualifications at the initial stage.

Analysis: The petitioners had been appointed as daily-rated workers between 1983 and 1986 and had continuously worked for a substantial period. The Court treated practical experience and actual discharge of duties as material for assessing suitability for confirmation. It held that the prescribed educational qualification was relevant at the stage of initial entry, but once the workers had been allowed to continue for years, denial of confirmation solely on that ground would be harsh and unjust. The Court further accepted three years' service, excluding artificial breaks of short duration created by the respondent, as sufficient for confirmation.

Conclusion: The petitioners were entitled to regularisation and phased confirmation in service on the basis of long service and experience.

Issue (ii): whether the petitioners were entitled to equal pay for equal work and consequential service benefits, including reinstatement of the retrenched workmen.

Analysis: The workmen were found to be performing the same or similar duties as employees in comparable regular posts, attracting the principle of equal pay for equal work under the constitutional equality provisions. The Court also treated artificial breaks in service and non-regularisation on the supposed uncertainty of the contract as unsustainable. It directed parity in pay and allowances with regular employees performing similar work, created promotional avenues for eligible workers, and ordered reinstatement of the workmen who had been ousted during the pendency of the petitions.

Conclusion: The petitioners were entitled to equal wages with regular employees performing similar duties, together with the consequential service reliefs directed by the Court, including reinstatement of the retrenched workmen.

Final Conclusion: The writ petitions succeeded, and the petitioners obtained regularisation, wage parity, and related service benefits.

Ratio Decidendi: Long and continuous service with practical experience may justify regularisation and confirmation of daily-rated workmen, and workers performing the same or similar duties as regular employees are entitled to equal pay for equal work under the constitutional guarantee of equality.

---