Holding

Arrears of wages to the conductors and drivers are payable from 1 April 2013, the date of the High Court judgment, to all similarly situated employees.

Summary

The State of Haryana employed conductors and drivers under the Haryana Transport Department (Group C) Haryana Roadways Service (Amended) Rules, 2003, initially paying them as daily wagers, then as contract labourers, and finally on the regular pay‑scale. One hundred ninety‑five employees filed writ petitions seeking regular pay from the date of their appointment. The Punjab and Haryana High Court, on 1 April 2013, ordered that they be placed on the regular pay‑scale from their initial appointment and awarded arrears for three years and two months prior to filing. The State accepted the regular‑pay order but conditioned arrears to be payable only from 1 January 2014, a condition accepted by 65 employees. The State appealed. The Supreme Court affirmed the High Court’s view on equal pay for equal work, held the statutory rules unconstitutional to the extent they permitted differential wages, and modified the arrears order, directing that arrears be payable to all similarly situated employees from 1 April 2013, the date of the High Court judgment, using its powers under Article 142. All civil appeals were dismissed.

Issues considered

The entitlement of conductors and drivers engaged under statutory service rules to regular pay‑scale from the date of appointment under the principle of equal pay for equal work.
Whether arrears of wages should be payable from the date of the High Court judgment (1 April 2013) or from a later date (1 January 2014) as per the settlement.
The constitutionality of the Haryana Roadways Service Rules insofar as they allowed differential wage treatment under Article 309 of the Constitution.
The applicability of the period of limitation to monetary claims for arrears.

Legislation cited

Subjects

equal pay for equal workstatutory service rulesArticle 309arrears of wagesperiod of limitationconstitutional benchservice lawHaryana Roadwaysregular pay scale

Judgment

(2017] 1 S.C.R. 1006

A STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER ETC.
v.
MOHINDER SINGH AND OTHERS ETC.
(Civil Appeal Nos. 7391-7395 of2013)
B JANUARY 31, 2017
[JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, CJI AND
DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.]
Labour Laws - Engagement of respondents as conductors
and drivers - Under Statutory Rules framed by the State - Initial
c wages paid by treating them as daily wagers - Wages further
enhanced by treating them as contract labourers - Finally }'loges
paid to them in the regular pay scale - Writ petitions by 195 of such
employees seeking wages i1:1 the regular pay-scale w.ej the date of
their entry into service - Petitions disposed of by High Court by
D order dated 1.4.2013 holding that the employees were entitled to
regular pay from the date of their initial appointments - High Court
further held that they were entitled to arrears for three years and
two months period prior to the date of filing the petitions - The
State accepted and implemented the judgment of High Court as
regards grant of regular pay-scale to all such employees from the
E
date of their initial appointment - However, the State imposed the
condition that it would pay the arrears only w.ej 1.1.2014 - 65 of
the writ petitioners-employees accepted the condition - Appeal of
State - Held: The order of High Court as regards payment of wages
on the principle of equal pay for equal work, calls for no interference
F - However, arrears should have been held to be payable only w.ej
the date of the order of the High Court i.e. 1.4.2013-Jn exercise of
iurisdiction u!Art. 142 of Constitution, direction issued to the State
to pay arrears to all the persons similarly situated as the respondent-
employees - Haryana Transport Department (Group C) Haryana
Roadways Service (Amended) Rules, 2003.
G
State ofKarnataka v. Umadevi (2006) 4 SCC 1 : [2006]
3 SCR 953 - followed.
State of Punjab v. Jagjit Singh (2017) 1 SCC 148 -
referred to.
H
1006
STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER ETC. v. MOHINDER 1007
SINGH AND OTHERS ETC.

Case Law Reference A
(2917) 1 SCC 148 referred to Para 7
[20061 3 SCR 953 followed Para 10
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 7391-
7395 of2013.
From the Judgment and Order dated 01.04.2013 of the High B
Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in CWP Nos. 22516, 3084,
17357, 25975 of2012 & CWP No. 1257 of2013
WITH
C. A. Nos. 1556-1569 of2017 and C. A. No. 8993 of2014.
B. K. Satija, AAG., Ms. Indu Malhotra, Sr. Adv., Prashant Singh,
c
Santosh Krishnan, Ms. Rakhi Mohanty, Tanvir Nayar, Dr. Monika Gusain,
Vi pin Kumar Jai, Advs. for the Appellants.
Manjeet Singh, Sr. Adv., Mrs. Vivekta Singh, Tarjeet Singh,
YogendraKr. Verma, Pankaj Pandey, Sanjay Kr. Rathee (For Satyendra
Kumar), L. R. Khatana, Mohit Singh, Hemraj Tewatia, Sidharth Khatana D
(For Sudhir Naagar), Suraj Prakash Ahlawat, Suresh Kumar Sharma,
Sanjay Malik (For Bankey Bihari Sharma), Sachin Jain (For Dr. Kai lash
Chand), Jasbir Singh Malik (For Ms. Usha Nandini), Siddharth Mittal,
Surender Singh (For Ms. Usha Nandini), Advs. for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was deliv,ered by E
JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, CJI I. The respondents before
this Court were engaged as conductors and drivers under statutory rules,
framed by the State ofHaryana, under Article 309 of the Constitution of
India. Under the concerned statutory rules, even though conductors and
drivers were engaged after following due process, they were paid
F
different wages. Their initial wages were paid by treating them as daily
wagers, their wages were then enhanced by treating them as contract
labourers,•and finally, they were paid regular wages in the regular pay
scale.
2. 195 of such employees preferred writ petitions before the
High Court, seeking wages in th~ regular scale of pay, with effect from G
the date of their entry into service. All those writ petitions came to be
disposed of, by a common order dated 1.4.2013 (or by placing reliance
on the said order). The operative part ofthe above order, is being extracted
hereunder:
"We are, therefore, of the opinion that placing the petitioners on H
·-----... ""·-· ._
!
! STATE OI;' HARYANAAND .ANOTHER ETC. v. MOH!NDER !009
1008 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] l S.C.R. ·

•. II SINGH AND OTHERS ETC. [JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, CJ!]

Conductors initially on the fixed salary and bringing them in graded A
A consolidated salary is impermissible and the rules to this extent I
· are unconstitutional ai:d, therefore;liable to be set aside. The ' pay scales after 4/6 years. The aforesaid objective can well be
placing of the petitioners in pay scales meant for Grade-II and achiev~d by putting the Drivers and Conductors after their
two years thereafter in Grade-I cannot be permissible. Tu appointment initially on probation and watching their work and
petitioners, thus. would be entitled to the minimum of the pay conduct during the period of probation. The respondents have
scale from the date of their initial appointments and their pay not been able to dislodge the weightv and meritorious contention B
.B shall be fixed accordingly. However, insofar as arrears of pay of the petitioners that paying different salary even after getting
are concerned, they will be entitled to the arrears for three years same work offends the principle of 'equal pay for equal work'."
and two months' period prior to the date of filing of these • (emphasis is ours)
petitions."
4. The judgment rendered by the High Court on 1.4.2013, has
(emphasis is ours) c
been assailed by the State ofHaryana, by filing a large number of special
c 3. It is further imperative for us to indicate, the basis on which leave petitions. Leave was granted in all the special leave petitions, except
the High Court arrived at the above decision. Accordingly, a relevant special leave petition (C) Nos.6159-6 I 63/2014. Leave is hereby granted,
part of paragraph 11 of the impugned judgment, wherein the reasons in the aforesaid special leave petitions, us well. Even though, an impression
siand re~orded, is being extracted hereunder: was made out, that the State ofHaryana, was assailing the determination
"11. The admitted facts, which are appearing on record, are that rendered in the impugned order on merits, yet the aforesaid impression D
D the recruitment rules for appointment to the posts of Drivers and is clearly dispelled by a perusal of the affidavit dated 5.8.2014 (filed by
conductors are same whether they are appointed on contract the Additional Transport Commissioner, Haryana), before this Court. A
basis initially or are given the pay scales after rendering the relevant extract of the aforesaid affidavit, is being reproduced hereunder:
services for specified number of years. All these petitioners "4. That to resolve the issues of drivers and conductors of the
fulfil those eligibilitv conditions contained in the recruitment rules. Transport Department. a meeting of the representatives of the
E
E It is also an admitted position on record that there was a proper State Government and representatives of Haryana Roadways
selection procedure followed by issuing the advertisement and Workers Coordination Committee consisting of various r.:gistered
making the selection through the Staff Selection Board/Service unions of the employees was held on 21.01.2014. in which a
Commission. The petitioners were selected on merits. From day • Mutual Agreement was entered upon. A copy of the said mutual
one they started doing the job of Driver and Conductor which is agreement is Annexed as Annexure 'A-I'.
the same as performed by the Drivers/Conductors who are rlaced F
F 5. That after the Mutual Agreement dated 21.01.2014. the Council
in the regular pay scale. It is, thus, not in dispute that the posts in of Ministers. in its meeting held on 24.6.2014. has taken the
question were advertised for open competition for direct decision with regard to grant of regular pay scale to the drivers
recruitment and all the petitioners were appointed through the and conductors of Haryana Roadways appointed under the
selection process made by the Staff Selection Commission after Haryana Transport Department <Gcoup Cl Haryana Roadways
giving opportunity to each and every eligible person. The only Service (Amended) Rules. 2001 as amended thereafter from G
G reason for putting them on contract/fixed salary in the beginning
and bringing them on the regular pay scale after they render time fo time.
service for specified period is that the provisions are made with 6. That after the decision of the CouMil ofMinisters, the Principal
objective to recruit best Drivers and Conductors who can provide . Secretary to Govt. ofHaryana Transport Department has issued
best services to the commuting public. It is not understood as to directions vide memo no.1/82/2012-1 T(ii) dated 25.6.2014 to
how this objective is achieved by putting the Drivers and -· implement the decision of the Council of the Ministers. Copy of H
H

.............. ............. "'''"""'"""""'""'""""""1111Tl!IHHI!
·-----... ""·-· ._
!
! STATE OI;' HARYANAAND .ANOTHER ETC. v. MOH!NDER !009
1008 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] l S.C.R. ·

•. II SINGH AND OTHERS ETC. [JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, CJ!]

Conductors initially on the fixed salary and bringing them in graded A
A consolidated salary is impermissible and the rules to this extent I
· are unconstitutional ai:d, therefore;liable to be set aside. The ' pay scales after 4/6 years. The aforesaid objective can well be
placing of the petitioners in pay scales meant for Grade-II and achiev~d by putting the Drivers and Conductors after their
two years thereafter in Grade-I cannot be permissible. Tu appointment initially on probation and watching their work and
petitioners, thus. would be entitled to the minimum of the pay conduct during the period of probation. The respondents have
scale from the date of their initial appointments and their pay not been able to dislodge the weightv and meritorious contention B
.B shall be fixed accordingly. However, insofar as arrears of pay of the petitioners that paying different salary even after getting
are concerned, they will be entitled to the arrears for three years same work offends the principle of 'equal pay for equal work'."
and two months' period prior to the date of filing of these • (emphasis is ours)
petitions."
4. The judgment rendered by the High Court on 1.4.2013, has
(emphasis is ours) c
been assailed by the State ofHaryana, by filing a large number of special
c 3. It is further imperative for us to indicate, the basis on which leave petitions. Leave was granted in all the special leave petitions, except
the High Court arrived at the above decision. Accordingly, a relevant special leave petition (C) Nos.6159-6 I 63/2014. Leave is hereby granted,
part of paragraph 11 of the impugned judgment, wherein the reasons in the aforesaid special leave petitions, us well. Even though, an impression
siand re~orded, is being extracted hereunder: was made out, that the State ofHaryana, was assailing the determination
"11. The admitted facts, which are appearing on record, are that rendered in the impugned order on merits, yet the aforesaid impression D
D the recruitment rules for appointment to the posts of Drivers and is clearly dispelled by a perusal of the affidavit dated 5.8.2014 (filed by
conductors are same whether they are appointed on contract the Additional Transport Commissioner, Haryana), before this Court. A
basis initially or are given the pay scales after rendering the relevant extract of the aforesaid affidavit, is being reproduced hereunder:
services for specified number of years. All these petitioners "4. That to resolve the issues of drivers and conductors of the
fulfil those eligibilitv conditions contained in the recruitment rules. Transport Department. a meeting of the representatives of the
E
E It is also an admitted position on record that there was a proper State Government and representatives of Haryana Roadways
selection procedure followed by issuing the advertisement and Workers Coordination Committee consisting of various r.:gistered
making the selection through the Staff Selection Board/Service unions of the employees was held on 21.01.2014. in which a
Commission. The petitioners were selected on merits. From day • Mutual Agreement was entered upon. A copy of the said mutual
one they started doing the job of Driver and Conductor which is agreement is Annexed as Annexure 'A-I'.
the same as performed by the Drivers/Conductors who are rlaced F
F 5. That after the Mutual Agreement dated 21.01.2014. the Council
in the regular pay scale. It is, thus, not in dispute that the posts in of Ministers. in its meeting held on 24.6.2014. has taken the
question were advertised for open competition for direct decision with regard to grant of regular pay scale to the drivers
recruitment and all the petitioners were appointed through the and conductors of Haryana Roadways appointed under the
selection process made by the Staff Selection Commission after Haryana Transport Department <Gcoup Cl Haryana Roadways
giving opportunity to each and every eligible person. The only Service (Amended) Rules. 2001 as amended thereafter from G
G reason for putting them on contract/fixed salary in the beginning
and bringing them on the regular pay scale after they render time fo time.
service for specified period is that the provisions are made with 6. That after the decision of the CouMil ofMinisters, the Principal
objective to recruit best Drivers and Conductors who can provide . Secretary to Govt. ofHaryana Transport Department has issued
best services to the commuting public. It is not understood as to directions vide memo no.1/82/2012-1 T(ii) dated 25.6.2014 to
how this objective is achieved by putting the Drivers and -· implement the decision of the Council of the Ministers. Copy of H
H

.............. ............. "'''"""'"""""'""'""""""1111Tl!IHHI!
JOJO SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2017] l S.C.R.

A the instructions dated 25.6.2014 is enclosed as Annexure 'A-2'.
7. That the State Government vide the instructions dated
25 .06.20 I 4 has decided that as per the agreement reached on
21.0 J.20 I 4 between the representatives of State Government
and the representatives of various Employees Unions. the drivers
B and conductors ofHaryana Roadways recruited after 01.0 I .2003
under the Haryana Transport Department (Group Cl Haryana
Roadways Service (Amended) Rules, 2003 as amended
subsequently in 2004 and 201 I. who have submitted their
affidavits will be paid the regular pay scale of the relevant post
from the date of their initial recruitment up to 3I.I2.2013. The
c benefit will be allowed to those drivers and conductors who have
submitted their affidavits as per the agreement signed on
2I.01.2014 and those who now submit the affidavits. The salary
of July, 2014 will be paid at the revised rates as per the agreement
and the arrears for the period January, 2014 to June. 20 I 4 will be
D paid in August/September, 2014. After allowing the regular pay
scales to the drivers and conductors, an application will be filed
in the Hon 'ble Supreme Court praying for the disposal of the
SLPs in terms of agreement.
8. That the abovesaid decision of the State Government has been
E taken as a golden handshake keeping in view the larger public
interest and welfare of the employees. The implementation of
the said Mutual Agreement will give quietus to the long pending
issue of payment of regular pay-scale to the drivers and
conductors of the department. Grant ofregular pay scale to these
employees would also be in accordance with the judgment of
F the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court under challenge in
the abovesaid SLPs. However, the arrear allowed by the Hon 'ble
Punjab and Haryana High Court would put huge financial burden
on the State Exchequr. It is pertinent to submit that t~ese
employees were appointed under the service rules legally framed
G under Article 309 of the Constitution of the India and do not
have any vested right to claim the regular pay scale and the
arrears.
9. The majority of the drivers and conductors have expressed
their willingness to forgo the arrears in case they are granted the
regular pay scale as per Mutual Agreement dated 21.01.2014
H
STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER ETC. v. MOHINDER 1011
SINGH AND OTHERS ETC. [JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, CJl)

and decision of the State Government vide instructions dated A
25.6.2014."
(emphasis is ours)
5. Learned counsel representing the State of Haryana pointed
out, that out of the 195 conductors and drivers, who had approached the
High Court, the settlement(refcrred to in the affidavit extracted B
hereinabove), was accepted by 65 of such employees (who had
approached the High Court). The remaining challenge, is therefore limited
to 130 respondents (who had approached the High Court) herein.
6. In conjunction to the factual position, noticed hereinabove, it is
also necessary to appreciate, that the State of Haryana, at its own, c
accepted and implemented the judgment rendered by the High Court,
even with reference to such conductors and drivers, who had not
approached the High Court, for any relief. The above judgment has
been implemented, so as to allow the regular pay scale to all conductors
and drivers, with effect from the date of their appointment, with the
overriding condition that arrears would be payable with effoct from D
l. l.2014. In the instant view of the matter, it is apparent, that there is no
serious dispute with reference to the challenge made at the hands of the
State Government, on the merits of the determination rendered by the
High Court. We therefore hereby affirm the judgment rendered by the
High Court, insofar as the merits of the controversy is concerned. E
7. Even otherwise, we are satisfied, that a challenge to the
determination rendered by the High Court, with reference to the wages
payable to the concerned employees, under the principle of equal pay
for equal work, as has been expressed by the High Court, is in consonance
with the legal position on the subject, declared by this Court in State of F
Punjab vs. Jagjit Singh, (2017) I SCC 148, and calls forno interference.
8. What remains for adjudication, is the direction contained in
the impugned judgment, that arrears would be payable to the appellants,.
who approached the High Court, for a period of three years and two
months, prior to the date of their filing petitions before the High Court. It G
is this aspect of the matter, which is seriously contested by the learned
counsel for the appellants. It was the submission of the learned counsel,
that the appellants, while disbursing wages to the respondents, had paid
them wages, as were due to them, in consonance with the statutory
rules, framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India. It was
H
•. . .. ,
~

1012 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] I S.C.R. STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER ETC. v. MOHINDER 1013
SINGJ::l.AND OTHERS ETC. [JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, CJ!]

A
'
therefore submitted, that the appellants cannot be accused of having
. action of the State Government in contesting the claim, which was rightful A
been unfair to the respondents. It was also submitted, that the State of and legitimate, cannot be accepied from a welfare State.
Haryana, despite the extreme financial burden, had unilaterally adopted I 0. We have given our thoughtful consideration, to the
the judgment, and had agreed to pay arrears of wages, with effect from submissions advanced at the behest of the learned counsel for the rival
l.1.20.14. It was submitted that, wages had indeed been released to all parties. Th_e only question,..that arises fot consideration at our hands, is
conductors and drivers, in consonance with the impugned judgment, even the date from which arrears should be released to the respondents. Insofar
B B
to those who had. not approached the High Court. It was however as the instant aspect of the matter is concerned, during the course of
acknowledged, that arrears had been paid on.ly, with effect from 1.12014. hearing, Ms. Jndu Malhotra, learned senior counsel representing the State
It was further submitted, that wages have also been released to 65 of ofHaryana, had invited our attention to the Constitution Benchjudgment
the appellants, who.had approached the High Court, in consonance with· of this Court in State ofKarnataka vs. Umadevi, (2006) 4 SCC I, wherein,
the impugned judgment, with effect from 1.1.2014, as they agreed to on the subject in question, this Co.urt had observed as under:
c execute a settleinent with the appellants, by concedingto acCept arrears c
only with effect from 1.1.2014. It.was therefore the submission of the "55. In cases relating to service in the Commercial Taxes
learned counsel for the State ofHaryana, that it would be not only just Department, the High Court has directed that those engaged on
and appropriate, but would also be fair, to extend arrears to all the daily wages, be paid wages equal to the salary and allowances
respondents, only for the period commencing from 1.1.2014. It was also that are being paid to the regular employees of their cadre in
submitted, that payment of arrears for any further time, would cause . government service, with effect from the dates from which they
D ·were respectively appointed. The objection taken was to the D
extreme financial hardship, fo the State. It was also contended, that it
would be almost impossible to pay wages to the respondents, for a period direction for payment from the dates of engagement. We find
of three years and two months, prior to the date of their filing petitions, that the High Court had ciearly gone wrong in directing that
before the High Court. these employees be paid salaiy equal to the salaiy and allowances
that are being paid to the regular employees of their cadre in
9. As against the contention advanced at the hands of the learned ·government service. with effect from the dates from which they
E E
counsel for the appellants, it was the submission of the learned coun;el were respectively e1igaged or appointed. It was not open to the
for the respondents, that the course adopted !?)'the High Court, was in High Court to impose Stich an obligation on the State when the
consonance with the declared position of law, inasmuch as, the High ·veiy question before the High Court in the case was whether
Court had taken into consideration, the period oflimitation, over which a these employees were entitled to have equal pay for equal work
monetary claim could be accepted. It was also the assertion of the learned so-called and were entitled to any other benefit. They had also
F counsel representing the conductors and drivers, that the State been engaged in the teeth of directions not to do so. We are. F
Government became alive of the claim raised by.the respondents, on the therefore,' of the view that. at best. the Division Bench of the
very date the respondents approached the High Court. It was submitted, High Court should have directed that wages equal to the salaiy
'-
that a fair government, would have accepted the employees~ just demand, that is being paid to regular employees be paid to these daily
and would have released their wages, as were rightfully i:lue to them, at wage employees with effect from the date ofits judgment. Hence,
its own. The fact, that the appellants were conscious of the genuineness ' that part of the direction of the Division Bench is modified and it
G G
of the claims of the conductors and drivers, it was pointed out, was is directed that these daily-wage earners be paid wages equal to
apparent from the fact, that the appellants have ll?.t challenged the the salary at the lowest grade of employees of their cadre iii the
impugned order on merits, and that, the .benefit of the judgment has been Commercial Taxes Department in government service, from the
extended to even those ·employees who had not approached tbe High date of the judgment of the Div~ion ~ench of the High Court."
Court, unilaterally by the State Government. It was submitted, that the .
(emphasis is ours) H
H
•. . .. ,
~

1012 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] I S.C.R. STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER ETC. v. MOHINDER 1013
SINGJ::l.AND OTHERS ETC. [JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, CJ!]

A
'
therefore submitted, that the appellants cannot be accused of having
. action of the State Government in contesting the claim, which was rightful A
been unfair to the respondents. It was also submitted, that the State of and legitimate, cannot be accepied from a welfare State.
Haryana, despite the extreme financial burden, had unilaterally adopted I 0. We have given our thoughtful consideration, to the
the judgment, and had agreed to pay arrears of wages, with effect from submissions advanced at the behest of the learned counsel for the rival
l.1.20.14. It was submitted that, wages had indeed been released to all parties. Th_e only question,..that arises fot consideration at our hands, is
conductors and drivers, in consonance with the impugned judgment, even the date from which arrears should be released to the respondents. Insofar
B B
to those who had. not approached the High Court. It was however as the instant aspect of the matter is concerned, during the course of
acknowledged, that arrears had been paid on.ly, with effect from 1.12014. hearing, Ms. Jndu Malhotra, learned senior counsel representing the State
It was further submitted, that wages have also been released to 65 of ofHaryana, had invited our attention to the Constitution Benchjudgment
the appellants, who.had approached the High Court, in consonance with· of this Court in State ofKarnataka vs. Umadevi, (2006) 4 SCC I, wherein,
the impugned judgment, with effect from 1.1.2014, as they agreed to on the subject in question, this Co.urt had observed as under:
c execute a settleinent with the appellants, by concedingto acCept arrears c
only with effect from 1.1.2014. It.was therefore the submission of the "55. In cases relating to service in the Commercial Taxes
learned counsel for the State ofHaryana, that it would be not only just Department, the High Court has directed that those engaged on
and appropriate, but would also be fair, to extend arrears to all the daily wages, be paid wages equal to the salary and allowances
respondents, only for the period commencing from 1.1.2014. It was also that are being paid to the regular employees of their cadre in
submitted, that payment of arrears for any further time, would cause . government service, with effect from the dates from which they
D ·were respectively appointed. The objection taken was to the D
extreme financial hardship, fo the State. It was also contended, that it
would be almost impossible to pay wages to the respondents, for a period direction for payment from the dates of engagement. We find
of three years and two months, prior to the date of their filing petitions, that the High Court had ciearly gone wrong in directing that
before the High Court. these employees be paid salaiy equal to the salaiy and allowances
that are being paid to the regular employees of their cadre in
9. As against the contention advanced at the hands of the learned ·government service. with effect from the dates from which they
E E
counsel for the appellants, it was the submission of the learned coun;el were respectively e1igaged or appointed. It was not open to the
for the respondents, that the course adopted !?)'the High Court, was in High Court to impose Stich an obligation on the State when the
consonance with the declared position of law, inasmuch as, the High ·veiy question before the High Court in the case was whether
Court had taken into consideration, the period oflimitation, over which a these employees were entitled to have equal pay for equal work
monetary claim could be accepted. It was also the assertion of the learned so-called and were entitled to any other benefit. They had also
F counsel representing the conductors and drivers, that the State been engaged in the teeth of directions not to do so. We are. F
Government became alive of the claim raised by.the respondents, on the therefore,' of the view that. at best. the Division Bench of the
very date the respondents approached the High Court. It was submitted, High Court should have directed that wages equal to the salaiy
'-
that a fair government, would have accepted the employees~ just demand, that is being paid to regular employees be paid to these daily
and would have released their wages, as were rightfully i:lue to them, at wage employees with effect from the date ofits judgment. Hence,
its own. The fact, that the appellants were conscious of the genuineness ' that part of the direction of the Division Bench is modified and it
G G
of the claims of the conductors and drivers, it was pointed out, was is directed that these daily-wage earners be paid wages equal to
apparent from the fact, that the appellants have ll?.t challenged the the salary at the lowest grade of employees of their cadre iii the
impugned order on merits, and that, the .benefit of the judgment has been Commercial Taxes Department in government service, from the
extended to even those ·employees who had not approached tbe High date of the judgment of the Div~ion ~ench of the High Court."
Court, unilaterally by the State Government. It was submitted, that the .
(emphasis is ours) H
H
1014 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 1 S.C.R.

A Having perused the determination rendered by this Court in the
Umadevi's case (supra), we are satisfied, that in terms of the above
judgment, arrears should have been held, to be payable to the respondents,
only with effect from the date when the impugned judgment was rendered
by the Division Bench of the High Court, i.e., with effect from 1.4.2013.
We are indeed bound to follow the aforesaid declared position, by the
B
Constitution Bench of this Court. More so because, the legal position on
the subject was uncertain, in view of the conflicting position reflected on
the subject, by different judgments of the High Court. The correct legal
position was decla_red for the first time, through the impugned judgment,
which also held the statutory rules framed under Article 309 of the
c Constitution as unconstitutional, to the extent of payment of wages. It is
on the above and allied consideration, that we feel, that it would not be
appropriate to extend the benefits of arrears to the respondents, keeping
in view the period oflimltation, for payment of monetary claims. In view
of the above, we hereby dismiss all the civil appeals on merits. Insofar
as the payment of arrears is concerned, the impugned order is modified,
D
and a direction is hereby issued, that arrears wil I be paid to the respondents
with effect from the date "f the impugned judgment, namely, with effect
from 1.4.2013.
11. While determining the issue, as to from which date the arrears
should be paid to the respondents, this Court cannot be oblivious to the
E rights of those, who had not approached the High Court or this Court,
nor can it be oblivious to the rights of those persons, who had entered
into a settlement with the State Government, and had accepted arrears,
with effect from 1.1.2014. It is imperative for us, in exercise of our
jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution, to do complete justice
F in the matter. We feel ourselves persuaded, to direct the State
Government, to pay arrears of wages, to all persons similarly situated as
the private respondents herein, in consonance with the impugned judgment,
with effect from 1.4.2013, this would include those employees who had
not approached the High Court or this Court, as well as, those who had
entered into a settlement with the State Government, agreeing to accept
G arrears only with effect from 1.1.2014. Ordered accordingly.

Kalpana K. Tripathy Appeals dismissed.

H