State of Punjab and Ors. v. Surinder Singh and Anr.

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court
Hon'ble Judges: A. K. Mathur
Markandey Katju
Judgment Date: 2007-10-25
Court Decision / Holding: The appeals are allowed. The High Court’s order and the Trial Court’s order granting the daily wage employees the same pay scale as regular employees are set aside, and the suits filed by the respondents are dismissed. No order as to costs.
Final Disposition: Appeals allowed; no order as to costs.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

State of Punjab and Ors.

Respondents

Surinder Singh
Anr.

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Nikhil Jain
• Ajay Pal

Counsels for Respondents

• Neeraj Kumar Jain
• Bharat Singh
• Sanjay Singh
• Sanjeep Chaturvedi
• Sanjay Singh
• Ugra Shankar Prasad

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a Civil Appeals judgment involving daily wage tractor drivers who claimed equal pay for equal work with regular employees. The Trial Court and the Punjab & Haryana High Court had awarded them the same pay scale, but the Supreme Court reversed. The Court held that equal pay for equal work requires complete and total identity between two persons similarly situated: a regular employee has undergone a selection process and is permanently regular, whereas a daily wage employee is appointed for a short term and has not faced selection. Accordingly, even if the daily wage workers perform the same functions as regular employees, the authorities are not obligated to grant them equal pay. The Court relies on S. C. Chandra & Ors. v. State of Jharkhand & Ors., [2007] 9 SCR 130 (JT (2007) 10 SC 272), which discussed that grant of pay scales is an executive or legislative function and not a judicial one, reinforcing separation of powers. The decision cites Montesquieu’s theory of separation of powers to justify judicial non-interference in executive remuneration decisions. Consequently, the appeals are allowed, and the orders of the High Court and Trial Court are set aside, with suits dismissed and no order as to costs. The principle of equal pay for equal work, as applied previously, is thus narrowed to cases of complete identity.

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Montesquieu's theory of separation of powers
Principle of equal pay for equal work requiring complete identity between comparators
Separation of powers between the legislative, executive, and judiciary

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The State contends that equal pay for equal work cannot be inferred automatically; there must be complete identity between the daily wage workers and regular employees. Regularization and pay scales are executive/legislative functions, and the judiciary should not encroach on such domains. The High Court’s and Trial Court’s orders granting regular pay scales to daily wage tractor drivers are not well founded, as they disregard the essential distinction in status and selection process.

Contentions of Respondents

The daily wage employees performing the same duties as regular employees argued for parity in pay, asserting that equal work warrants equal compensation. The respondents contended that lack of regular appointment and failure to undergo selection should not bar them from receiving wages equal to those regularly appointed who perform the same functions.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
S. C. Chandra & Ors. v. State of Jharkhand & Ors.	[2007] 9 SCR 130; JT (2007) 10 SC 272	Positive	Cited to support the proposition that the grant of pay scales is an executive/legislative function and that judiciary should not encroach; strengthens the separation-of-powers rationale used by the Court.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

_)_ # STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. # _v._ SURINDER SINGH AND ANR. OCTOBER 25, 2007 [A.K. **MATHUR AND MARKANDEY KA TJU, JJ.]** B _+-_ ~ ~ y _Service Law:_ _Daily wage employees-Claim for equal pay for equal work-_ c _Allowed by trial court and High Court-HELD: There should be complete and total identity between two persons similarly situate'd so as to grant equal pay for equal work-In case of a regular appointee, he has undergone a selection process and his services are regularEven if a daily wage employee is discharging same functions as a_ D _regular employee, the authorities are not bound to grant equal pay to him as he is appointed for a short term and has not faced selection process-Orders of High Court and the trial court are set aside._ S. C. _Chandra and Ors._ v. _State of Jharkhand and Ors.,_ **[2007] 9 SCR 130=JT(2007) 10** SC 272, **relied on.** E CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 56075608 of 2001. From the Judgment and final Order dated 24.05.2000 of the fligh Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in RSA Nos. 42-43 of2000. F Nikhil Jain and Ajay Pal for the Appellants. Neeraj Kumar Jain, Bharat Singh, Sanjay Singh, San~eep Chaturvedi, Sachin Jain and U gra Shankar Prasad for the Respondents. ~- The following Order of the Court was delivered ## **ORDER** G Heard learned for the parties. 707 \ -\ 708 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 11 S.C.R. ~ A These appeals by special leave are directed against the common judgment and order dated 24.5.2000 passed by a learned Single Judge of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in Regular Second Appeal Nos. 42/2000 and 43/2000 whereby the High Court has upheld the order of the Trial Court. The Trial Court had directed that the respondents herein B[who ][were ][working ][as ][Tractor Drivers ][on ][daily ][wage ][basis should ][be ] granted the same pay scale as those who had been regularly appointed, on the principle of equal pay for equal work. However, the other relief regarding regularization of their services was declined by the Trial Court and the same was affirmed by the High Court. c Aggrieved by the order of the High Court, the State of Punjab is in appeal before us. ~ Special leave was granted by this Court on 17.8.2001 and the execution of the order passed by the High Court was stayed. Today the D[appeals ][are ][before ][us ][for ][final ][hearing. ] We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment of the High Court as also of the Trial Court. The principle of equal pay for equal work has gone a sea change. E[Earlier ][the ][view ][of ][this ][Court ][was ][that ][If ][two ][persons ][are ][discharging ][the ] same functions, they will be entitled to same wages. Subsequently this view has been changed and now the view of this Court is that there should be complete and total identity between the two persons similarly situated so as to grant equal pay for equal work. Recently this Court has held that F[identity ][between ][two ][persons ][has ][to ][be ][complete ][and ][total. ][In ][case of a ] regular appointee, he has undergone a selection process and his se~ices are regular. Even if a daily wage employee is discharging the same functions as a regular employee the authorities are not bound to grant equal pay to such a person who is appointed on daily wage basis, i.e., is G[appointed ][for ][a ][short ][term ][and ][has ][not ][faced ][the ][selection ][process. ][Thus, ] the principle of equal pay for equal work has to be granted only if there is a total and complete identity between the two persons. In this view, we are supported by a decision of this Court in the case of S. C. _Chandra & Ors._ v. _State of Jharkhand & Ors.,_ [2007] 9 SCR 130-JT [2007] H[10 ][SC ][272, ][which ][has ][referred ][to ][earlier decisions of this ][Court. ] y ·"" _.1_ _! } I_ ST A TE _v._ SURINDER SINGH 709 _)_ In the aforesaid decision one of us (Markandey Katju, J.) in his A concurring judgment has held that granting pay scale is an executive or legislative function, and not a judicial function. There is separation of powers under the Constitution between the three organs of the State 1 and the judiciary should not encroach into the domain of the other organs. Montesquieus theory of separation of powers broadly applies in India too. B In view of the legal position, as mentioned above, we are of the opinion that the view taken by the High Court granting pay scale of regular employees to the daily wage employees does not appear to be ~ell founded. Consequently, we allow these appeals and set aside the order C of the High Court as also of the Trial Court and dismiss the suits filed by the respondents herein. The appeals are allowed. No order as to costs. RP. Appeals allowed. D , '