Temporary employees performing equal work are entitled to the minimum regular pay scale with DA.

The 128 applicants were engaged in various Group ‘D’ posts—including Peon, Mali, Sweeper, Aya, Chowkidar, Security Guard and Gatekeeper—in Government schools under the Chandigarh Administration.

They were initially engaged on daily-wage basis between 1999 and 2004, subsequently worked through outsourcing agencies, and were directly engaged by school authorities on DC rates from June 2009 onwards pursuant to communications issued by the District Education Officer.

The Chandigarh Administration had issued circulars providing that whole-time contractual employees would receive the minimum of the applicable pay scale along with Dearness Allowance (DA), with subsequent revisions to contractual remuneration.

The applicants alleged that, despite performing duties identical to those performed by regular Group ‘D’ employees and despite similarly situated employees receiving the benefit of minimum pay scale plus DA, they continued to be paid only DC rates.

The respondents contended that the applicants were merely part-time or DC-rate workers engaged by individual schools as a stop-gap arrangement, without appointment against sanctioned posts or compliance with the regular recruitment process.

1. Whether the applicants, though engaged as daily-wage, DC-rate, part-time or outsourced workers and not appointed through the regular recruitment process, were entitled to wages at the minimum of the pay scale applicable to corresponding regular Group ‘D’ posts on the principle of equal pay for equal work?

2. Whether the respondents’ denial of minimum pay scale plus DA to the applicants, while extending the same benefit to similarly situated employees, violated Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution?

3. Whether the applicants were entitled to arrears and other consequential monetary benefits, and if so, for what period?

The Tribunal applied the constitutional principle of equal pay for equal work, derived principally from Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution and extended to temporary employees through State of Punjab v. Jagjit Singh, (2017) 1 SCC 148, which held that daily-wage, casual, ad hoc and contractual employees performing duties and responsibilities similar to regular employees are entitled to at least the minimum of the regular pay scale, without thereby acquiring a right to regularisation.

The Tribunal also relied on the Chandigarh Administration’s circulars dated 13.03.2007 and subsequent instructions providing minimum pay scale plus DA to eligible whole-time contractual employees.

It distinguished authorities such as State of Haryana v. Tilak Raj, State of Haryana v. Jasmer Singh, Official Liquidator v. Dayanand and Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), holding that those decisions primarily concerned the requirements for regularisation or claims lacking proof of comparable work, and did not defeat a substantiated claim for pay parity.

The absence of appointment against sanctioned posts or through regular recruitment may be relevant to regularisation, but is not, by itself, a bar to a claim for equal wages where identity of duties is established.

The Tribunal found that the applicants had continuously discharged Group ‘D’ duties under the direct control and supervision of the Education Department for a considerable period.

The respondents produced no material demonstrating any substantial difference between the applicants’ duties, functions or responsibilities and those of corresponding regular employees.

The Tribunal held that labels such as “DC-rate,” “part-time” or “outsourced,” and the absence of regular recruitment, could not independently justify payment of lower wages where the work performed was materially the same.

The respondents’ own extension of minimum pay scale plus DA to similarly situated employees further established unequal treatment and rendered the denial to the applicants arbitrary and discriminatory under Articles 14 and 16.

Applying Jagjit Singh, the Tribunal treated pay parity as distinct from regularisation and held that the applicants’ claim did not seek permanent absorption.

The respondents were directed to pay the applicants wages at the minimum of the pay scale applicable to the corresponding regular Group ‘D’ posts, together with admissible DA.

The applicants were also granted consequential monetary benefits and arrears, restricted to three years preceding the filing of the Original Application.

The respondents were directed to complete fixation and calculation within three months of receiving the certified order and to release the benefits within a further six weeks.

In case of default, the arrears would carry interest at 6% per annum from the date they became payable until payment.

No order as to costs was made.