Holding

Supervisors performing the same duties as regular employees must receive equal pay irrespective of their temporary appointment or recruitment method, though they are not entitled to be deemed permanent from the outset.

Summary

The petitioners, appointed as full‑time supervisors under Haryana's adult and non‑formal education schemes, were hired on six‑month contracts with a one‑day break after each period, resulting in lower pay than regular supervisors (respondents 2‑6) performing identical duties. They claimed this violated Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, invoking the "equal work, equal pay" doctrine. The State argued that differences in recruitment mode, temporary nature of the scheme, and contractual appointments justified the disparity. The Court examined the nature of the duties, qualifications, and full‑time status of the petitioners and held that the differences cited by the State were irrelevant to the equal‑pay principle. Consequently, the petitioners were ordered to be placed on the same pay scale as the regular supervisors, with service continuity calculated from their initial appointment, but were not granted permanent regular‑cadre status. The Court also directed payment of salary differences retroactive to September 1985 and ordered costs of the petition.

Issues considered

Whether supervisors appointed on six‑month contracts with periodic breaks are entitled to the same pay scale as regular supervisors under Articles 14 and 16.
Whether differences in mode of recruitment, temporary nature of the scheme, or contractual appointment can justify pay discrimination.
Whether the petitioners can be deemed permanent employees for purposes of pay and service benefits.

Subjects

equal payequal workArticle 14Article 16temporary appointmentpay scale disparityservice continuityadult education schemediscrimination

Judgment

A BHAGWAN DASS AND OTHERS >-·
v.
STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.

JULY. 31, 1987

B [M.P. THAKKAR AND K.N. SINGH, JJ.]

Constitution of India-Arts. 14 and 16--Doctrine of "Equal
work equal pay"-When it is established that the work performed is
similar, there can be no discrimination with regard to scale of pay on
the ground that the mode of recruitm.ent was different or the nature of
C appointment was temporary.

The Education Department of the State of Haryana which was
administering Adult Education Centres for providing functional ,
literacy to illiterates in the age-group of 15·35 years and Non-Formal
D Education Centres to impart learning by Special Contact Courses to
student drop-outs from schools in the age-group of 6· 15 y~ars,
appointed the petitioners as supervisors from time to time since the
years 1978 on a fixed salary and continued to treat them as temporary
government servants by giving them a deliberate break in service
of one day after the lapse of every six-months. Contending that this
E. was violative of Arts. 14 and 16 since they were discharging similar
duties as other Supervisors such as respondents 2·6 in the Educa·
lion Department who had been absorbed as regular government
servants, the petitioners prayed for issue of a Writ directing the State
Government to give them the same scale of pay and benefits of conti·
nuous service, etc. by declaring them to be permanent government
F servants.

The State Government contended that the petitioners were not
full time employees, that their mode of recruitment was different from
the mode of recruitment of regular Supervisors, that the nature of
0 functions discharged by them was different from those of the latter r·

and that they had been appointed on six-monthly basis as the posts
were sanctioned from year to year in view of the temporary nature of
the schemes.

The documentary evidence placed on record established that the
H petitioners were functioning as full-time Supervisors and had been
714
BHAGWAN DASS v. HARYANA 715
_.)
given the status equivalent to masters of formal schools and their A
functions were also like the Block Education Officers offormal schools.

Allowing the petition partly,

HELD: The petitioners "are entitled to be paid on the same basis
of same pay scale as per which respondents 2 to 6 who are discharging B
~
similar duties as Supervisors just like the petitioners, are being
y paid.

(i) The Respondent-State has failed to establish its plea that the

- nature of the duties are different. In the regular cadre, the essen-
tial qualification for appointment is B.A., B.ED. Petitioners also c
possess the same qualification viz., B.A., B.ED. In faci many of
them even possess higher degrees such as M.A., M.ED. In what
manner and in what respect are the duties and functions
discharged by those who are in the regular cadre different? The
petitioners having discharged the initial burden of showing
similarity in this regard, the burden Is shifted on the Respon- D
,...("
dent-State to establish that these are dissimilar in essence and
in substance. We are unable to uphold the bare assertion made
in this behalf by the State of Haryana in its Counter-am-
davit. [723F-G]

(ii) So long as the petitioners are doing work which is similar to E

r .,..
the work performed by respondents 2 to 6, from the stand point of
'Equal work for equal pay' doctrine, the petitioners cannot be
discriminated against in regard to pay scales. Whether equal
work is put in by a candidate, selected by a process whereat
candidates from all parts of the country could have competed or
whether they are elected_ by a process where candidates from only F
a cluster of a few villages could have competed Is altogether
irrelevant and immaterial, for the purpose of the applicability of
'Equal work for equal pay' doctrine. A typist doing similar work
as another typist cannot be denied equal pay on the ground that
the process of selection was different inasmuch as ultimately the
__,_ work done Is similar and there Is no rational ground to refuse G
equal pay for equal work. It Is quite possible that if he had to
compete with candidates from all over the country, he might or
might not have been selected. It would be easier for him to be
selected when the selection Is limited to a cluster of a few villages.
That however is altogether a different matter. It is possible that he
might not have been selected at all if he had to compete against H

t
716 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [ 1987] 3 S.C.R.

A ~-
candidates from all over the country. But once he is selected,
whether he is selected hy one process or the other, he cannot he
denied equal pay for equal work without violating the said
doctrine. [723B-E]

B (iii) Whether appointments are for temporary periods and the
Schemes are temporary in nature is irrelevant once it is shown -1
that the nature of the duties and functions discharged and the '
work done is similar and the doctrine of 'Equal pay for equal y
work' is attracted. [724B-C]

c
(iv) The petitioners have been appointed in the context of a
Scheme which is by the very nature of things transient and
-
temporary. No doubt it has been extended from year to year. But y
by the very nature and scope of the scheme, once the objective of
Adult Education is accomplished in the sense that the illiterate
adults of the cluster of villages become literate pursuant to the
education imported at the centres, the need for adult education
D
would diminish progressively and ultimately cease. Having regard
to these facts and circumstances we do not think that the
..,..
Respondent-State can he accused of making appointments on a
temporary six-months' basis with any ulterior or oblique motive.
In our opinion, therefore, the prayer of the petitioners to absorb
them as regular employees on a permanent basis from the date of
E
their initial appointment has no justification. That however does
not mean that the petitioners should he deprived of the Ieiitimate
hen.efits of being fixed in a pay-scale corresponding to the one
applicable to respondents 2 to 6 by treating them as employees
who have continued from the date of initial appointment by disre-
11 ~
garding the breaks which have been given on account or the pecu-
f liar nature of the Scheme. While, therefore, the petitioners cannot
claim as a matter of right to he absorbed as permanent and regu-
lar iomployees from the inception, they would be justified in claim-
ing pay on the basis of the length of service computed from the
date of their appointment depending on th~ length of service by
disregarding the breaks which have been· given for a limited
G purpose. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the ·r
present case, ends of justice would he met if the petitioners are
paid the difference in salaries with effect from the date of the
institution of the Writ Petition viz. September 18, 1985. But it will
he convenient to direct the implementation with effect from
September l, 1985. 7258-G; 726A-B]
H

I
BHAGWAN DASS v. HARYANA [THAKKAR, J.[ 717

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition No. 12311 of 1985. A

(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India).

Gobind Mukhoty and S.K. Bhattacharya for the Petitioners.

M.S. Gujral, Madhu Sudan Rao, I.S. Goel, C.V. Subba Rao, B
and Ms. Kitty Kumarmanglam for the Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

- THAkKAR, J. The alleged violation of "Equal work equal pay"
doctrine is the principal grievance of the petitioners. c
The petitioners 102< 1> in number holding the degrees of B.A.,
B.Ed. and M.A., B.Ed. were appointed as Supervisors by a competent
selection committee constituted by the Education Department of
Haryana from time to time since October 2, 1978.
D
They have instituted the present petition under Art. 32 of the
Constitution of India seeking appropriate reliefs in the context of two
grievances, one that the petitioners are given a deliberate break of one
day after the lapse of every six months and have thus been treated as
temporary Government servants notwithstanding the fact that they
have been continuously working eversince the dates of their respective E
appointment subject to the aforesaid break of one day at intervals of
six months instead of absorbing them as regular employees in regular
pay scales. And secondly, though the petitioners performed their
duties as Supervisors in the Education Department and do the same
work as is being done by their counterparts, respondents 2 to 6 who are
discharging similar duties as Supervisors in the Education Department F
who are absorbed as regular government servants they are paid less.
The relief claimed by the petitioners is in the following terms:-

(1) To declare by appropriate writ that the petitioners continue
to be in the service of the respondents from the date of
appointment irrespective of their being a deliberate break in G
service after every six months by the respondents in violation
of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution oflndia;

1. Originally there were 91 petitioners. Subsequently 11 more were added as per the
order of the Court dated September 18, 1986 in Civil Misc. Petition Nos. 23014 and
25722 of 1986. H

\
718 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1987] 3 S.C.R.

(2) To declare by appropriate writ or direction that the peti-
A
tioners are in continuous service since their respective date
of appointments since the National Adult Education Prog-
ramme was introduced and further issue a writ in the nature
of mandamus to the respondent that the petitioners are en-
titled to the benefit of notification dated 15-9-1982 issued by
B respondent State of Haryana and accordingly the petitioners -1'\
be put on similar pay scales and service conditions as that of
Masters (B.A., B.Ed.) in the State ofHaryana, and,

(3) To issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any appropriate

c
writ, order or direction to the respondent nos. 2 and 4 to put
the petitioners on regular pay scales along with other conse- -
quential benefits of a permanent employee from the date of
initial appointment.

Before dealing with the grievances made by the petitioners, it
would be appropriate to portray the factual background. The Educa-
D tion Department of State of Haryana has constituted an Adult Educa-
tion Scheme under the overall control of Joint Director, Adult and
non-formal Education Department, respondent no. 3 herein in the
context of the National Adult Education Scheme sponsored by the
Government of India the birth anniversary of Mahatma Gandhi in
1978 (October 2, 1978). The aim of adult education under this scheme
E is to provide functional literacy to the illiterates in the age group of
15-35. The State Government has also framed another Scheme for
the non-formal education under the overall control of the same offi-
cial. The objective of this scheme is to impart learning by special
contact courses to the students in the age group of 6-15, who are
dropouts from schools. The petitioners are appointed as Supervisors.
F There are hundreds of such Adult Education Centres and Non-formal
Education Centres. One supervisor is provided for a group of 30
centres. Thus each of the petitioners is in charge of 30 centres under
one scheme or the other. He is paid remuneration at the rate of Rs.500
p.m. as fixed salary. Each one of them was, prior to March, 1984 also
paid a sum of Rs.60 as fixed travelling allowance which allowance has
G been increased to Rs. 150 per month from March 7, 1984 onwards. )-
'
The Adult Education Centres are run under the Rural Func-
tional Literacy Programme/Project (RFLP) of the Central Govern-
ment. 'The project is however administered by the respondent, the
State of Haryana. According to the respondent the expenditure in
H respect of remuneration payable to the petitioners under RFLP is
,
BHAGWAN DASS v. HARYANA [TIIAKKAR, J.] 719

borne by the Central Government. With regard to the centres func- A
tioning under the State Adult Education Programme/Project (SAEP)
to those of the petitioners who are employed under the Scheme are
paid remuneration on the same pattern by the State Government as
and by way of honorarium.

)' The functions and duties discharged by the petitioners in their B
capacity as Supervisors under the Adult Education Scheme as per the
communication dated April 8, 1985 (Annexure R-2) addressed by
respondent no. 3 to the District Officers and Project Officers, are as
under:-

- "The supervisors of the adult education has been given the C
status equivalent to masters of formal schools and their
functions are also like the Block Education Officers of the
formal schools. Thus the functions of the supervisors work-
ing under Adult Education Scheme are inspection and to
impart knowledge. The general duties of the supervisors
will be:- D

to make educational survey of his own village and nearby
villages-under the Rural Functional Literacy Programme
for starting adult education and non-formal education
centres, to locate and recommend for appointment suitable
instructors for these centres from these very villages, to E
give active co-operation in their training, to give guidance
in their reading and writing material, to give proper direc-
tion to instructors in his cluster the latest techniques of
adult education, to give guidance continuously in latest
technique of teaching methods, inspection of centres and
making arrangements for their reading, writing material, to F
give model lessons, to hold discussions in the Mohallas/
houses of- the community cultivating friendship and
personal relationship with the community, create
awareness and awakening in them in the matter of literacy,
functionality and awareness."
G
The controversy as to whether the Supervisors were full-time
Supervisors like Respondents 2 to 6 or whether they were part-time
Supervisors as has been contended by the State· of Haryana in its
affidavit in reply has to be resolved in favour of the petitioners in-
asmuch as the documentary evidence placed on record establishes that
the petitioners were full-time (and not part-time) Supervisors. At An- H
720 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [ 1987] 3 S.C.R.
--
nexure 'C' has been produced a document entitled 'Revised financial
A pattern of the Project with 100 Educational centres ....... ". The
cadre of Supervisors has been described as full-time cadre in this docu-
ment, as evidenced by the following extract:-

"C. Supervision
B (a) Full time Supervisors-one supervisor for a cluster -\
of 30 centres (3 supervisors for 100 centres each in
the rank of Assistant Inspector of Schools with an -..,,
average salary of Rs. 500 per month)

(b) TA cost on supervision (Rs.150
Rs.18,000.00
-
c per month per supervisor) Rs. 5,400.00

Total Rs,23,400.00"

(Emphasis added).
p What is more, the matter has been placed beyond the pale of con- ).,
troversy by a Circular issued by the State Government to all Adult
Education Officers as per Annexure 'D' dated April 9, 1985. The
relevant extract from the Circular deserves to be quoted:

"1. Headquarter of the supervisor:
E
(a) The headquarter of each supervisor shall be estab- ~
lished in the middle of the village.

(b) Each supervisor will be present at his Headquarter on
a fix day once in a week between 9.30 A.M. to 4.00
F P.M. The information of the fix day will be given to all
the instructors and adult education officers.

(c) The monthly tour programme of each Supervisor will
be got sanctioned by the Assistant Project Education
Officers and made his tour according to this plan as far ,,_
G as possible.

( d) The Supervisor will stay whole day in the village and
will inspect informal education centres in the day and
adult education centre in the night.
H (e) He will call the meeting of respected persons of the

~-
BHAGWAN DASS v. HARYANA (THAKKAR, J.] 721
··-.J
village on the date of meeting and discuss about the A
progress of the centre. This meeting can be called be-
fore or after the time of the centre.

(f) If any supervisor leaves the headquarter without permis-
sion or does not perform his duties properly the neces-
i sary action may be taken against him." B
/

""' It is therefore futile to contend that the petitioners in their capa-
city as Supervisors were required only to perform part-time work. As
per clause (d) of the aforesaid extract, the supervisors were required to
- stay for the whole day in the village and were required to visit the
Informal Education Centre and the Adult Education Centre in the C
night. They were also required to go on tour and to remain at the
headquarter once a week from 9.30 A.M. to 4.00 P.M. The conclusion
is therefore inevitable that the petitioners were not part-time func-
tionaries but were whole-time functionaries.

The matter may now be examined in this background. The D
respondent-State has resisted the claim of the petitioner for granting
them pay in accordance with the pay-scales applicable to Respondents
2 to 6, who are Supervisors in the regular cadre discharging similar
functions, on four grounds viz:-

(i) that the petitioners are not full-time employees; E

(ii) the mode of recruitment of the petitioners is different
from the mode of recruitment of respondents 2 to 6.

(iii) the nature of the functions discharged by the petition-
ers are not similar to the functions discharged by F
respondents 2 to 6; and

(iv) appointments are made on six-monthly basis and there
is a break in service having regard to the fact that the
posts are sanctioned on year to year basis in view of
the temporary nature of the Scheme. G

With regard to the first ground for not granting salary on the
same basis as of respondents 2 to 6, viz. that they are part-time emp-
loyees whereas respondents 2 to 6 are full-time employees, having
examined the aforesaid records placed before the Court, we are of the
opinion that there is no substance in this contention. H
722 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1987] 3 S.C.R.

A With regard to the next contention viz. that the mode of recruit-
ment of the petitioners is different from the mode of recruitment of
respondents 2 to 6, we are afraid it is altogether without substance.
The contention has been raised in the following terms (paragraph 4(d)
of the Counter-affidavit dated 6-1-1986 filed on behalf of Respondents
1to13):-
B
It is absolutely incorrect that the Petitioners are similarly
placed as the employees under the Social Education
Scheme, as alleged. The latter are whole-time employees
selected by the subordinate services Selection JJoard after
competing with candidates from any part of the country. In
the case of Petitioners, normally the selection at best is
-
c limited to the candidates from the Cluster of a few villages
only. The contention made by the Petitioners has 110 justifi-
able basis."
(Emphasis added).

D We need not enter into the merits of the respective modes of selection.
Assuming that the selection of the petitioners has been limited t~ the
cluster of a few villages, whereas Respondents 2 to 6 were selected by
another mode wherein they had faced competition from candidates
from all over the country, we need not examine the merits of these
modes for the very good reason that once the nature and functions and
E the work are not shown to be dissimilar the fact that the recruitment
was made in one way or the other would hardly be relevant from the
point of view of "Equal pay for equal work" doctrine. It was open to
the State to resort to a selection process whereat candidates from all
over the country might have oompeted if they so desired. If however
they deliberately chose to limit the selection of the candidates from a
F cluster of a few villages it will not absolve the State from treating such
candidates in a discriminatory manner to the disadvantage of the
selectees once they are appointed, provided the work done by the
candidates so selected is similar in nature. It was perhaps considered
advantageous to make recruitment from the cluster of a few villages
for the purposes of the Adult Education Scheme because the Super-
G visors appointed from that area would know the people of that area r-
more intimately and would be in a better position to persuade them to
take advantage of the Adult Education Scheme in order to make it a
success. So also it was perhaps considered desirable to make recourse
to this mode of recruitment of candidates because candidates from
other parts of the country would have found it inconvenient and oner-
H ous to seek employment in such a Scheme where they would have to
BHAGWAN DASS v. HARYANA [THAKKAR, J.I 723

. .) work amongst total strangers and it would have made it difficult for A
them to discharge their functions of persuading the villagers to avail of
the Adult Education Scheme on account of that factor. So also they
might not have been tempted to compete for these posts in view of the
~
fact that the Scheme itself was for an uncertain duration and could
have been discontinued at any time. Be that as it may, so long as the
petitioners are doing work which is similar to the work performed by B
respondents 2 to 6 from the stand point of 'Equal work for equal pay'
doctrine, the petitioners cannot be discriminated against in regard to
"". pay scales. Whether equal work is put in by a candidate, selected by a
process whereat candidates from all parts of the country could have

- competed or whether they are selected by a process where candidates
from only a cluster of a few villages could have competed is altogether c
irrelevant and immaterial, for the purposes of the applicability of
'Equal work for equal pay' doctrine. A typist doing similar work as
another typist cannot be denied equal pay on the ground that the
process of selection was different in asmuch as ultimately the work
done is similar and there is no rational ground to refuse equal pay for
equal work ..It is quite possible that if he had to compete with candi- D
. ...( dates from all over the country, he might or might not have been
selected. It would be easier for him to be selected when the selection is
limited to a cluster of a few villages. That however is altogether a
different matter. It is possible that he might not have been selected at
all if he had to compete against candidates from all over the country.
But once he is selected, whether he is selected by one process or the E
other, he cannot be denied equal pay for equal work withot violating
-~ the said doctrine. This plea raised by the Respondent-State must also
fail.
··-., Turning now to the contention that the nature of the duties are
different, the Respondent-State has failed to establish its plea. In the F
regular cadre, the essential qualification for appointment is B.A.,
B.Ed. Petitioners also possess the same qualifications viz. B.A., B.Ed.
In fact many of them even possess higher degrees such as M.A. M.Ed.
In what manner and in what respect are the duties and functions dis-
charged by those who are in the regular cadre different? The petition-
ers having discharged the initial burden showing similarity in this G
-\ regard, the burden is shifted on the Respondent-State to establish that
these are dissimilar in essence and in substance. We are unable to
uphold the bare assertion made in this behalf by the State of Haryana
(in paragraph 21 of the Counter-affidavit dated November 23, 1985).
In fact the communication dated April 8, 1985 (Annexure R-2) addres-
sed by the respondent State of Haryana to the District Officers which H
724 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1987] 3 S.C.R.

A . has been quoted in the earlier port of the judgment supports the con- ).._
tentions of the petitioners and belies the plea raised by the Res-
pondent-State.

Lastly we have to deal with the contention that the Scheme is a
temporary Scheme and the posts are sanctioned on an year to year
B basis having regard to the temporary nature of the Scheme. We are ·
unable to comprehend how this factor can be invoked for violating. _,
'Equal pay for equal work' doctrine. Whether appointments are for
temporary periods and the Schemes are temporary in nature is irrele-
vant once it is shown that the nature of the duties and functions dis-
charged and the work done is similar and the doctrine of 'Equal pay for
c equal work' is attracted. As regards the effect of the breaks given at
the end of every six months, we will deal with this aspect shortly
hereafter. That however is no ground for refusing aspect the 'Equal
pay for equal work' doctrine. Be it realized that we are concerned with
the 'Equal work Equal pay' doctrine only within the parametres of the
four grounds and the fact situation discussed hereinabove. We are not
D called upon, and we have no need or occasion to consider the applica-
bility or otherwise of the said doctrine outside these parameters. For
instance we are not required to express any opinion in the context of
employment of similar nature under different employers, or in diffe-
rent cadres under the same or different employers. Nor are we con-
cerned with questions required to be dealt with by authorities like the
E Pay Commissions such as equation of cadres or determination of
parity-differential between different cadres or making assessment of
work loads or qualitative differential based on relevant considerations
and such other matters. We are concerned in the present matter with
employees of the same employer doing same work of same nature
. discharged in the same department but appointed on a temporary basis
F instead of in a regular cadre on a regular basis. We have therefore
decided the questions raised before us in the backdrop of facts of the
present case. On the other dimensions of the doctrine we remain silent
as there is no need or occasion to speak.

In the result we are of the opinion that the petitioners are en-
G titled to be paid on the same b_a_sis of same pay scale as per which
respondents 2 to 6 who are discharging similar duties as Supervisors
just like the petitioners, are being paid.

We are now faced with the problem arising in the context of the
fact that appointments of the petitioners were initially made for six
H months and after giving a break of a day or two they were reappointed
BHAGWAN DASS v. HARYANA (THAKKAR, J.] 725

to the same posts by fresh order. The counter-affidafit filed on 23rd A
November, 1985 by the State of Haryana and the documents placed on
record go to show that the petitioners' contention that this is done
deliberately with a view to deny to them the benefits enjoyed by the
employees similarly situated and discharging similar duties and func-
tions as Supervisors in the regular cadres. We find it difficult to accept
) the contention of the petitioners that this is being done deliberately B
and with mala fides attributed to the Respondent-State. The petition-
ers have been appointed in the context of a Scheme which is by the
very nature of things transient and temporary. Annexure R-1 to the
aforesaid counter-affidavit shows that the Scheme was expected to
function for ten months. No doubt it has been extended from year to
year. But by the very nature and scope of the Scheme, once the objec- c
tive of Adult Education is accomplished in the sense that the illiterate
adults of the cluster of villages become literate pursuant to the educa-
tion imparted at the centres, the need for adult education would
diminish progressively and ultimately cease. As disclosed in para-
graphs 16 and 17 of the aforesaid counter-affidavit the targets were
expected to be achieved latest by 1990. It was in this background that D
the posts were sanctioned on year to year basis (paragraph 11 of the
counter affidavit). Having regard to these facts and circumstances we
do not. think that the Respondent-State can be accused of making
appointments on a temporary six months basis with any ulterior or
oblique motive. In our opinion, therefore, the prayer of the petitioners
to absorb them as regular employees on a permanent basis from the E
date of their initial appointment has no justification. That however
does not mean that the petitioners should be deprived of the legitimate
benefits of being fixed in a pay-scale corresponding to the one appli-
cable to respondents 2 to 6 by treating them as employees who have
continued from the date of initial appointment by disregarding the
breJ1ks_ wh_ich have been given on account of the peculiar nature of the F
Scheme: ·While, _therefore, the petitioners cannot claim as a matter of
right to be absorbed as permanent and regular employees from the
inception, they would be justified in claiming pay on the basis of the
length of service computed from the date of their appointment depen-
ding on the length of service by disregarding the breaks which have
been given for a limited purpose. If this is not done the anomaly such G
as the one fiighlighted by the petitioners in their rejoinder affidavit
dated December 13, 1985 will arise. As stated by the petitioners in
paragraph 4(c) of the aforesaid rejoinder affidavit, while a Peon in the
regular service would be drawing Rs.650 the petitioners would be
getting only Rs.500 as fixed salary notwithstanding the nature and
importance of the functions discharged by them and the role played by H
726 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [ 1987] 3 S.C.R.

A them in the important field of advancement of literacy in the State.
And finally we must deal with the question of date with effect from
which the petitioners should be paid the difference in salary. In our
opinion having regard to the facts and circumstances of the present
case ends of justice would be met if the petitioners are paid the differ-
ence in salaries with effect from the date of the institution of the Writ
B Petition viz. September 18, 1985. But it will be convenient to direct the -\
implementation with effect from September 1, 1985. We accordingly
allow the Writ Petition partly and direct as under:-

I

C The Petitioners shall be fixed in the same pay-scale as that of -
Respondents 2 to 6.

II

The pay of each of the petitioners shall be fixed having regard to
D the length of service with effect from the date of his initial appoint-
ment by ignoring the break in service arising in the context of the fact
that the initial appointment orders were for 6 months and fresh
appointment orders were issued after giving a break of a day or two.

III
E
The fixation shall be made as per the general principles adopted """",-
whenever pay revi~ions are made. In case upward revision has be~n
effected in respect of the supervisors in the regular, cadre such revision
should be taken into account in refixing the pay of the petitioners. y

F IV

The amount representing the difference in pay of the petitioners
computed as per the present order shall be paid to each petitioner
preferably latest by Mahatma Gandhiji's birthday which falls on 2nd
October, 1987 or latest by November I, 1987. The petitioners will be
G entitled to increments in the pay-scale in accordance with law notwith- ~
standing the brt;ak in service that might have been given.

v
We hope and trust that the State of Haryana will not show disple-
H asure at the petitioners who have approached this Court in order to
BHAGWAN DASS v. HARYANA [THAKKAR, J.l 727

) vindicate their right to claim equal pay arrd that service of no petitioner A
would be terminated except on reaching the age of superannuation or
by way of appropriate disciplinary action, or on abandonment of the
Scheme. For the sake of abundent caution we direct accordingly.

VI
B
Fresh appointment orders will have to be issued reappointing the
petitioners who have continued in service on the expiry of the six
months period from time to time in order to give effect to the direction
contained in clause V hereinabove.

- VII c
In case the amounts of difference in pay cannot be computed
within the time-limit granted by this order, provisional and approxi-
mate calculations should be made and payment should be made on
such basis subject to final adjustment within the time granted.
D
.I. The petitioners shall be paid the cost of the Writ Petition
quantified at Rs.5,000. Ordered accordingly.

r H.L.C. Petition allowed.

_.,.

.•