The petitioner is a Watchman Cum Peon working under the 2nd respondent institution. His grievance is that the consolidated pay is not revised even after wage revision /pay revision is implemented under the 2nd respondent.
2. As per Ext.P1 order dated 28.12.2000, petitioner has engaged as Watcher-cum-Peon on daily wages @Rs.120/- of the actual duty. The engagement was for a period of 179 days. However, petitioner continued in service. As per Ext.P2 order, the daily wage was revised as Rs.200/- on 28.07.2009. It is stated that petitioner, thereafter requested for regularization and thereupon he was appointed as per Ext.P3 order dated 03.03.2011 on a consolidated pay of Rs.6000/-, in the post of Security Guards/ Full Time Sweepers/ Last Grade Servants. In Ext.P3, it was stated that apart from the consolidated pay of Rs.6000/- per month, he is not entitled for any other benefits from the institution. Petitioner submits that as at present, he is getting a consolidated pay of Rs.9000/-, as per Ext.P8 order with W.P.(C). No. 26574 of 2016 2 effect from 17.06.2013. At the same time, the daily wages to the Security Guards presently engaged under the second respondent was revised from Rs.200/- to Rs.350/-, as per Ext.P5 order, on 23.09.2011 and thereafter from Rs.350/- to Rs.400/- as per Ext.P7 order, on 29.05.2013. As per Ext.P9 order, Government enhanced the rate of daily wages of all casual and daily waged employees from Rs.350/- to Rs.400/-. Petitioner's grievance is that even though Security Guards, working in the 2nd respondent are paid wages @Rs.400/-, the petitioner is not even getting proportionate consolidated pay, which would be Rs.12,000/-. The daily wages were enhanced to Rs.400/- with effect from 01.10.2014. However, petitioner continues to get a sum of Rs.10,500/- only from 23.09.2011 onwards. Petitioner along with other Security Guards had approached this Court in W.P.(C) No.14563/2012 seeking directions for enhancement of his consolidated pay and by Ext.P11 judgment, the 2nd respondent was directed to consider the claim of the petitioner if the petitioners are entitled to consolidated wages based on corresponding increase made by the Government from time to time. Petitioner submits that no action was taken thereafter. Petitioner points out that the W.P.(C). No. 26574 of 2016 3 daily wages applicable to Government employees have already been revised as per Ext.P12 order, by which the daily wages have been enhanced to Rs.675/- per day with a maximum of Rs.18,900/- per month. Petitioner claims that he is entitled to the enhanced daily wages @Rs.675/- and the revised consolidated pay of Rs.18,900/- in tune with Ext.P12 order.
3. The 2nd respondent submits that the 10th pay revision is not implemented under them so far and the employees under them are paid in accordance with the 9th pay revision. Government has also filed a counter affidavit. According to respondents 1 and 2, petitioner, who is paid wages on a consolidated pay, is not entitled to get his consolidated pay revised in tune with the pay revision granted to the daily wage employees.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for respondents.
5. The contention that the petitioner is not entitled to revision of consolidated pay, even after revision of the daily wages is untenable. Petitioner is paid the consolidated pay, which is equivalent to the daily wages for a period of 30 days. Proportionate enhancement to their wages is only just and fair W.P.(C). No. 26574 of 2016 4 and that should be granted to the petitioner. Such a revision is absolutely necessary, in the case of persons, who are appointed on consolidated pay. There cannot be any discrimination on the basis of the nature of payment of remuneration to an employee for the purpose of revision. The purpose for which revision of pay/ wages is implemented, exists in the case of persons like petitioner also, when there is rise in cost of living.
6. Petitioner relied on the judgment of the apex court in State of Punjab and Others v. Jagjit Singh and Others [2017(1) SCC 148] and argued that petitioner is entitled to get the revised rate of wages in tune with Ext.P14. But that rate is not so far implemented in the 2nd respondent corporation.
Accordingly, there shall be a direction to the 2nd respondent to revise the consolidated pay of the petitioner on par with the wages admissible to the daily wage employees. As it is pointed out that the daily wage employees are paid @Rs.400/-, petitioner would be entitled to get Rs.12,000/- as a monthly consolidated pay. As and when the revised wages in tune with the 10th pay revision is implemented under the 2nd W.P.(C). No. 26574 of 2016 5 respondent, petitioner shall also be granted the benefits of the same, enhancing the consolidated pay, as equivalent to revised wages for 30 days, i.e. in accordance with the enhanced rate. The arrears due to the petitioner for the period from 01.10.2014 shall be paid within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
Sd/-
P.V.ASHA JUDGE RKM