Equal pay for equal work applied to daily-wage employees pending regularisation under statutory rules.

Once statutory regularisation rules were framed under Article 309, regularisation of daily-wage employees had to proceed under that rule-making framework, and no separate judicially directed scheme was required. The Court also applied equal pay for equal work to hold that daily-wage employees performing similar duties to regular employees were entitled, until regularisation, to receive the minimum of the corresponding pay-scale, though not increments or other allowances. For regularisation, the relevant qualification standard was the one in force on the date of initial engagement as a daily-wager, not a later or newly prescribed standard. The appeals were disposed of accordingly.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether, after framing of statutory regularisation rules under Article 309, any further scheme for regularisation of daily-wage employees was required; (ii) whether daily-wage employees were entitled, pending regularisation, to draw the minimum of the pay-scale applicable to regular employees in the corresponding post, and what qualification standard would govern regularisation.

Issue (i): whether, after framing of statutory regularisation rules under Article 309, any further scheme for regularisation of daily-wage employees was required.

Analysis: Once the State had framed statutory rules governing regularisation of daily-wage appointments, the matter of regularisation was to be dealt with under that rule-making framework. In that situation, there was no occasion to direct the State to frame any additional scheme for the same field. Any grievance against the statutory rules themselves would give rise to a separate cause of action.

Conclusion: No further scheme for regularisation was required; regularisation had to proceed in accordance with the statutory rules.

Issue (ii): whether daily-wage employees were entitled, pending regularisation, to draw the minimum of the pay-scale applicable to regular employees in the corresponding post, and what qualification standard would govern regularisation.

Analysis: Applying the principle of equal pay for equal work, the Court held that daily-wage employees performing similar duties to regular employees were entitled, until regularisation, to receive the minimum of the pay-scale of the corresponding regular post, but not increments or other allowances. For regularisation, the relevant qualification was the qualification existing on the date of initial engagement as a daily-wager, not a later or newly prescribed standard. The existence of long continuance also indicated the need for such posts, though the creation of posts remained for the competent authority.

Conclusion: Daily-wage employees were entitled to the minimum of the pay-scale until regularisation, and the governing qualification was the one relevant on the date of initial engagement.

Final Conclusion: The appeals were disposed of by holding that regularisation must follow the statutory rules, while the daily-wage employees were entitled to the minimum of the pay-scale until such regularisation.

Ratio Decidendi: Daily-wage employees performing duties similar to regular employees are entitled to the minimum of the corresponding pay-scale until regularisation, and once statutory regularisation rules are framed, regularisation must be governed by those rules rather than by a separate judicially directed scheme.

---