JUDGMENT S.N. Srivastava, J.
1. These petitions in hand have been filed by the petitioners who have been stagnating in various Nagar Nigams/Nagar Palika Parishads as Daily wage Class IV employees ever since their induction in the service prior to June, 1991. Since all the petitions are knit together by common cause and have been filed for the common reliefs, they have been heard together for decision as a composite case.
2. Writ Petition No. 2093 of 2002, Praveen Kumar v. State of U.P., is taken up as a leading case to get hang of the substance of the controversy involved in the petitions. The petitioner in the aforestated writ petition, namely, Praveen Kumar had entered the service of the Nagar Palika Parishad, Modi Nagar on 8.1.1991 as Electrician and ever since then he has been performing his duties assigned to him in the capacity of daily wage employee in unbroken continuity.
3. I have heard Sarvsri R.C. Shukla, Y.K. Sinha, Neeraj Tripathi and other learned counsel appearing for respective petitioners in the writ petitions taken together for disposal as a composite case.
4. In paragraphs 18 and 28 of the writ petition instituted by Sri Praveen Kumar, the petitioner has specifically averred that he is performing self-same duties and discharging self-same functions at par with regularly appointed persons and he has completed a span of more than 12 years as such and by this reckoning, he is entitled to regular salary as being paid to regularly appointed persons. It is further averred in the writ petition, that representation was also preferred seeking regularisation of service and payment of salary at par with regularly appointed persons. The quintessence of what has been canvassed by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that all the petitioners have been discharging their duties similar to the duties being performed by the regularly appointed persons since as far back as the year 1991 and it would thus transpire that there is felt necessity to have the posts qua the strength of daily wage employees in the Nagar Palika Parishads/Nagar Nigams in the State of U.P. To enforce his submissions, the learned counsel placed credence on a decision in Dharwad District P.W.D. Literate Daily Wage Employees' Association and Ors. v. State of Karnataka and Anr., 1990 (2) SLR 43 and State of U.P. v. Putti Lal 2002 (3) AWC 2375 (SC) : 2002 (2) UPLBEC 5195. In Putti Lal's case, the Apex Court has directed to consider the case of regularisation according to Regularisation Rules, 2002 and for the interim, the Apex Court ordered payment of minimum of the pay scale as applicable to their counter part in the Government until services of such daily age employees are regularised. The other decisions relied upon by the learned counsel are Gujarat Agricultural University v. Rathod Labhu Bechar, 2001 (1) AWC 2.3 (SC) (NOC) : AIR 2O01 SC 706 ; Jayanta Biswas v. University of Calcutta and Ors., (2001) 1 UPLBEC 74 and Daily rated Casual Labour employed under P & T Department through Bhartiya Dak Tar Majdoor Manch v. Union of India and Ors., AIR 1987 SC 2342, to hammer home the submissions aforestated.
5. In the counter-affidavit, the averments made in paras 18 and 28 of the writ petition have not been repudiated in so far as they relate to regularisation. In fact, the stand taken by Sri Pankaj Mittal, is one of avowal of the claim of the petitioners to the extent of their claim for regularisation but at the same time, the learned counsel did not mince words to state that the Nagar Palika Parishad, Modi Nagar has already put in papers to the State Government for creation of posts and it would act upon regularisation process as soon as the requisite posts are sanctioned by the State Government. The learned counsel, however, vehemently demurred to the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners were entitled to minimum of the pay scale applicable to their counterpart in the Parishad and in vindication of his stand, cited the authority of a recent decision of the Apex Court in State of Haryana v. Tilak Raj in Civil Appeal No. 4570 of 2002, decided on 14.7.2003. It was a decision in appeal aforestated against the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court whereby the respondent were directed to be paid the minimum pay applicable to the regular employees. The Apex Court held that a scale of pay is attached to a definite post and in case of a daily wager, he holds no posts. It was further observed that the respondents cannot be held to hold any posts to claim any comparison with the regular and permanent staff for any or all purposes including the claim for equal pay and allowances and that the equal pay for equal work is a concept which requires for its applicability complete and wholesale identity between a group of employees claiming identical pay scale and the other group of employees who have already earned such pay scales. It was further observed that the direction about equal pay cannot always be translated into a mathematical formula. In justifying the ratio from this decision, the learned counsel further submitted that the Apex Court has noticed in its decision the case of Jasmer Singh, in which the quintessence of direction was that pending regularisation, the daily wage employees are entitled to get minimum of the wages and also referred to various other cases including Ghaziabad Development Authority v. Vikram Chaudhary, 1995 (3) AWC 1596 (SC) : 1995 (9) SCC 210, in fortifying his stand that the petitioners are not entitled to minimum of the pay scales. As a sequel to citations aforestated, the learned counsel quipped that the aforestated decisions being the latest in the series could be followed for application in the facts and circumstances of the present case. The learned counsel again harking back to the decision in State of Haryana v. Tilak Raj, canvassed that in this decision, all the earlier authoritative pronouncements including one rendered in Jasmer Singh's case, has been noticed in which the Apex Court has painstakingly analysed the ratio decidendi flowing from all the earlier decisions. It was further canvassed that there is noticeable difference between the functions being performed by daily wage employees and regularly appointed persons and by this reckoning, threadbare formula cannot be applied and therefore, it was submitted that the petitioners are not entitled to get minimum of the pay scales. The learned counsel also drew attention of the Court to a decision in State Bank of India v. M.R. Ganesh Babu, 2002 (93) FLR 853. It is a three-Judge Bench decision in which the Apex Court reiterated the principles that the equal pay must depend upon the nature of work done and it cannot be judged by the mere volume of work ; there may be qualitative difference as regards reliability and responsibility. It was further observed that functions may be the same but the responsibilities make a difference. It was a case in which respondents 1 and 2 were appointed within the category of specialist officers. The Rural Development Officers who were then considered as specialist officers in the bank made a grievance and claimed parity with the generalist officers contending that having regard to the duties and responsibilities shouldered by them they were entitled to the same benefit as was extended to the probationary and trainee officers who were fitted on appointment/ promotion at four stages higher in the scale I applicable to the officers of the junior management grade. The Apex Court in that case converged to the conclusion that the duties and responsibilities of probationary officers/ trainee officers are more onerous while the specialist officer are not exposed to operational work/risk and therefore, it was held that there existed a valid distinction in the matter of work and nature of operations between the specialist officers and the general category officers. This case is distinguishable inasmuch as decision in that case flows from different context and perspective and none of the facets involved in three-Judges Bench decision can be imported for application to the facts and controversy involved in the instant petition. The learned counsel also stressed the point that the Court should follow with approval the ratio flowing from the decision in Jasmer Singh's case and invited attention of the Court to a Full Bench of this Court in Ganga Saran v. Civil Judge, Hapur, 1991 (1) AWC 213 (FB) : AIR 1991 Alld 114 (FB), in which it was laid down that ".................the Courts must follow the Judgment which appear to them to state the law accurately and elaborately,"
6. I have devoted anxious considerations to the respective contentions of the learned counsel for the parties and the question that forces itself in the forefront for consideration is whether pending regularisation, the petitioners can be granted relief of payment of minimum of the pay scales regard being had to the fact that the petitioners in the instant case have put in more than 12 years of service as Daily wage employees.
7. Before delving into the factual aspects, it is apposite to notice the ratio distilled from the decisions rendered by three-Judge Bench decisions in Putti Lal, Randhir Singh and in Dharwad District P.W.D. Literate Daily Wage Employees Association's cases cited by the learned counsel for the petitioners. It is worthy of mention that Randhir Singh case has been followed in number of cases by this Court and has been affirmed by yet another Constitution Bench in D.S. Nakara v. Union of India, (1983) 2 SCR 165, and subsequently, the principles laid down in Randhir Singh's case were observed with approval in Dharwad case. The two Judge Bench decision in Jasmer Singh has been rendered in conflict with the aspects dwelt upon on prolix length in Randhir Singh's case. Randhir Singh's case was followed by Constitution Bench in D.S. Nakara and subsequently in Dharwad and Putti Lal's case on the point whether the daily rated employers are entitled to minimum of the wages or minimum of the pay. In Randhir Singh's case observed as under :
"It is true that the principle of 'equal pay for equal work' is not expressly declared by our Constitution to be a fundamental right. But it certainly is a constitutional goal. Article 39(d) of the Constitution proclaims 'equal pay for equal work for both men and women' as a Directive Principle of State Policy. 'Equal pay for equal work for both men and women' means equal for pay equal work for everyone and as between the sexes. Directive Principles, as has been pointed out in some of the judgments of this Court have to be read into the fundamental rights as a matter of interpretation. Article 14 of the Constitution enjoins the State not to deny any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws and Article 16 declares that there shall be equality of opportunity for all citizens in matters relating to employment or appointment to any office under the State. These equality clauses of the Constitution must mean something to everyone. To the vast majority of the people the equality clauses of the Constitution would mean nothing if they are unconcerned with the work they do and the pay they get. To them the equality clauses will have some substance if equal work means equal pay. Whether the special procedure prescribed by a statute for trying alleged robber-barons and smuggler kings or for dealing with tax evaders is discriminatory, whether a particular Government Policy in the matter of grant of licences or permits confers unfettered discretion on the Executive, whether the take-over of the empires of industrial tycoons is arbitrary and unconstitutional and other questions of like nature, leave the millions of people of this country untouched. Question concerning wages and the like, mundane they may be, are yet matters of vital concern to them and it is there, if at all that the equality clauses of the Constitution have any significance to them. Construing Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution in the light of the Preamble and Article 39(d), we are of the view that the principle 'equal pay for equal work' is deducible for those articles and may be properly applied to cases of unequal scales of pay based on no classification or Irrational classification though those drawing the different scales of pay do identical work under the same employer."
8. In the case of Daily Rated Casual Labour employed under P. & T. Department v. Union of India and Ors., (1988) 1 SCC 122, the Apex Court reckoned with issue in question and indicated as under :
"It may be true that the petitioners have not been regularly recruited but many of them have been working continuously for more than a year in the department and some of them have been engaged as casual labourers for nearly ten years. They are rendering the same kind of service which is being rendered by the regular employees doing the same type of work. Clause (2) of Article 38 of the Constitution of India which contains one of the Directive Principles of State Policy provides that the State shall, in particular, strive to minimize the inequalities in income and endeavour to eliminate inequalities in status, facilities and opportunities not only amongst Individuals but also amongst groups of people residing in different areas or engaged in different vocations. Even though the above directive principle may not be enforceable as such by virtue of Article 37 of the Constitution of India, it may be relied upon by the petitioners to show that in the instant case they have been subjected to hostile discrimination. It is urged that the State cannot deny at least the minimum pay in the pay scales of regularly employed workmen even though the Government may not be compelled to extend all the benefits enjoyed by regularly recruited employees. We are of the view that such denial amounts to exploitation of labour. The Government cannot take advantage of its dominant position and compel any worker to work even as a casual labourer on starvation wages. It may be that the casual labourer has agreed to work on such low wages. That he has done because he has no other choice. It is poverty that has driven him to that stage. The Government should be a model employer. We are of the view that on the facts and in the circumstances of this case, the classification of employees into regularly recruited employees and casual employees for the purpose of paying less than the minimum pay payable to employees in the corresponding regular cadres particularly in the lowest rungs of the department where the pay scales are the lower is not tenable. India is a socialist republic. It implies the existence of certain important obligations which the State has to discharge. The right to work, the right to free choice of employment, the right to just and favourable conditions of work, the right to protection against unemployment, the right of everyone who works to just and favourable remuneration ensuring a decent living for himself and his family, the right of every one without discrimination of any kind to equal pay for equal work, the right to rest, leisure, reasonable limitation on working hours and periodic holidays with pay, the right to form trade unions and the right to joint trade unions of one's choice and the right to security of work are some of the rights which have to be ensured by appropriate legislative and executive measures. It is true that all these rights cannot be extended simultaneously. But they do indicate the socialist goal. The degree of achievement in this direction depends upon the economic resources, willingness of the people to produce and more than all the existence of industrial peace throughout the country. Of those rights the question of security of work is of utmost importance. If a person does not have the feeling that he belongs to an organisation engaged in production he will not put forward his best effort to produce more. That sense of belonging arises only when he feels that he will not be turned out of employment the next day at the whim of the management. It is for this reason it is being repeatedly observed by those who are in charge of economic affairs of the countries in different parts of the world that as far as possible security of work should be assured to the employees so that they may contribute to the maximisation of production. It is again for this reason that managements and the Governmental agencies in particular should not allow workers to remain as casual labourers or temporary employees for an unreasonably long period of time....................."
9. Again In U.P. Income Tax Department contingent Paid Staff Welfare Association v. Union of India and Ors., (1987) Suppl. SCC 668, the Apex Court having regard to the principles as laid down in P and T Department case aforestated, gave following relief in the ultimate analysis :
"We accordingly allow this writ petition and direct the respondents to pay wages to the workmen who are employed as the contingent paid staff of the Income Tax Department throughout India, doing the work of Class IV employees at the rates equivalent to the minimum, pay in the pay scale of the regularly employed workers in the corresponding cadres..................."
10. The Dharwad District P.W.D. Literate Daily Wage Employees Association v. State of Karnataka, 1990 (2) SLR 43. has been rendered noticing the principles in the aforestated case. It was a three-Judge Bench decision dealing with the case of confirmation of daily rated and monthly rated employees as a regularly Government servants and for payment of normal salary at the rates prescribed for the appropriate categories of the Government servants and other service benefits. It was pleaded in that case that about 50,000 such workers were employed in the different Government establishments and though many of them have put in 16 to 20 years of continuous service which is proof of the fact that there is permanent need for the jobs they perform they have not been regularised in their service and were not being paid equal pay for equal work as has been mandated by this Court by way of Implementation of the Directive Principles of State Policy. In ultimate analysis, following directions were issued by the Apex Court:
"We can well realise the anxiety of the petitioners who have waited too long to share the equal benefits mandated by Part IV of the Constitution in respect of their employment. At the same time we cannot overlook the constraints arising out of or connected with availability of State resources. Keeping both in view that reposing our trust in the relevant instrumentalities of the State that may be connected with the Implementation of the scheme to act with a sense of fairness, anxiety too meet the demands of the human requirements and also anxious to fulfil the constitutional obligations of the State, the directions which we give below will give a final shape to the scheme thus ;
(1) The casual/dally rated employees appointed on or before 1.7.1984 shall be treated as monthly rated establishment employees at the fixed pay of Rs. 780 per month without any allowances with effect from 1.1.1990. They would be entitled to an annual increment of Rs. 15 till their services are regularised. On regularisation they shall be put in the minimum of the time scale of pay applicable to the lowest Group D cadre under the Government but would be entitled to all other benefits available to regular Government servants of the corresponding grade. Those belonging to the B or C Groups upon regularisation shall similarly be placed at the minimum of the time scale of pay applicable to their respective groups under Government service, and shall be entitled to all other benefits available to regular Government servants of these grades.
11. Putti Lal's case was also a three-Judge Bench decision in which the Apex Court delved into all related aspects and converged to the conclusions that the respondents In that case were entitled to minimum of the pay scales at par with their counter-parts in the Forest Department. In this decision, the Apex Court gave weightage to the principles flowing from the above quoted decisions and held good the relief of minimum of the pay scales. On the other hand, in State of Haryana v. Jasmer Singh, which the two-Judge Bench decision has noticed in State of Haryana v. Tilak Raj, 2003 (3) SCCD 1096 : 2003 (4) AWC 2597 (SC) : 2003 AIR SCW 3382, the observation was to the following effect :
"The principle of "equal pay for equal work" is not always easy to apply. There are inherent difficulties in comparing and evaluating the work done by different persons in different organisations, or even in the same organisation. There may be differences in educational or technical qualifications which may have a bearing on the skills which the holders bring to their job although the designation of the job may be the same. There may also be other considerations which have relevance to efficiency in service which may justify differences in pay scales on the basis of criteria such as experience and seniority, or a need to prevent stagnation in the cadre, so that the good performance can be elicited from persons who have reached the top of the pay scale. There may be various other similar considerations which may have a bearing on efficient performance in a job. The evaluation of such jobs for the purposes of pay scale must be left to expert bodies and unless there are any mala fides, its evaluation should be accepted."
In the ultimate analysis, the Apex Court converged to the following conclusions :
"Therefore, the respondents, who are employed on daily wages cannot be treated as on a par with persons in regular service of the State of Haryana holding similar posts. Daily-rated workers are not required to possess the qualifications prescribed for regular workers, nor do they have to fulfil the requirement relating to age at the time of recruitment. They are not selected in the manner in which regular employees are selected. There are also other provisions relating to regular service such as the liability of a member of the service to be transferred, and his being subject to the disciplinary Jurisdiction of the authorities as prescribed, which the daily rated workmen are not subjected to. They cannot, therefore, be equated with regular workmen for the purposes for their wages. Nor can they claim the minimum of the regular pay scale of the regularly employed. However, if a minimum wage is prescribed for such workers, the respondents would be entitled to it if it is more than what they are being paid."
12. It would thus transpire that the Apex Court considered the ratio flowing from Randhir Singh's case and taking cue from the observations in that case that the judgment of administrative authorities concerning the responsibilities which attach to the post and the degree of reliability expected of an incumbent would be a value judgment of the authorities concerned which, if arrived at bona fide, reasonably and rationally, was not open to interference by the Court, converged to the inference to the following effect :
"It is, therefore, clear that the quality of work performed by different sets of persons holding different jobs will have to be evaluated. There may be differences in educational or technical qualifications which may have a bearing on the skills which the holders bring to their job although the designation of the job may be the same. There may also be other considerations which have relevance to efficiency in service which may justify differences in pay scales on the basis of criteria such as experience and seniority, or a need to prevent stagnation in the cadre, so that good performance can be elicited from persons who have reached the top of the pay scale. There may be various other similar considerations which may have a bearing on efficient performance in a job. This Court has repeatedly observed that evaluation of such jobs for the purposes of pay scale must be left to expert bodies and unless there are any mala fides, its evaluation should be accepted."
It was upon consideration of observations in that case that differentiation in pay scales among Government servants holding same posts and performing similar work on the basis of difference in the degree of responsibility, reliability and confidentiality would be a valid differentiation, the Apex Court held the Daily Wagers not entitled to minimum of the pay scales at par with regularly appointed employees. The Apex Court considered in that case the aspect that the principle of equal pay for equal work was originally enunciated as a part of the Directive Principles of State Policy in Article 39(d) of the Constitution and that in the case of Randhir Singh, it was held that the principle had to be read into Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution attended with the observation that this was a constitutional goal capable of being achieved through constitutional remedies. It is obvious from the perusal of the decision that the two-Judge Bench decision in Jasmer Singh's case held the daily wage employees not entitled to minimum of the pay scale in the perspective of the facts of that case. In P. and T. case which has been noticed in Dharwad P.W.D. Literate Daily Wage Employees Association's, the Apex Court observed that Clause (2) of Article 38 of the Constitution of India which contains one of the Directive Principles of State Policy provides that the State shall in particular, strive to minimise the inequalities in income and endeavour to eliminate inequalities in status, facilities and opportunities not only amongst individuals but also amongst groups of people. It was further observed that even though the above directive principle may not be enforceable as such by virtue of Article 37 of the Constitution of India, it may be relied upon by the petitioners to show that in the instant case, they have been subjected to hostile discrimination. It was urged in that case that the State could not deny at least the minimum pay in the pay scales of regularly employed workmen even though the Government may not be compelled to extend all the benefits enjoyed by regularly recruited employees and in connection with the proposition, it was observed that "We are of the view that such denial amounts to exploitation of labour. The Government cannot take advantage of its dominant position and compel any worker to work even as a casual labour on starvation wages." It was further quipped by the Court that "it may be that the casual labourer has agreed to work on such low wages and that he has done because he has no other choice. It is poverty that has driven him to that stage. The Government should be a model employer," Putti Lal's case, has been rendered in the conspectus of all the above decisions. It was also a decision of three-Judge Bench subsequent to the decision in Jasmer Singh's case, and the ratio flowing from Randhir Singh's case, ending with Putti Lal's case has been followed with approval in a recent decision in State of West Bengal and Ors. v. Pantha Chatterjee and Ors.. 2003 AIR SCW 3316. In this case, the observation germane to the point was that "In several cases this Court applying the principle of equal pay for equal work has held that a daily wager, if he is discharging the similar duties as these in the regular employment of the Government, should at least be entitled to receive the minimum of the pay scale though he might not be entitled to any increment or any other allowance that is permissible to his counterpart in the Government." It was further observed by the Apex Court in that case that "In our opinion, that would be the correct position and would, therefore, direct that these daily wagers would be entitled to draw at the minimum of the pay scale being received by their counter part in the Government and would not be entitled to any other allowances or increment so long as they continue on daily wage..........."
13. All the above decisions have been noticed with approval in a recent decision of the Apex Court in State of West Bengal and Ors. v. Pantha Chatterjee and Ors.. 2003 AIR SCW 3316. In this case, the Apex Court was seized of the claim of Part Time Border Wing Home Guards vis-a-vis regular Boarder Wing Home Guards of the West Bengal and the Border Security Force personnel. In the matter, it was claimed that the Part time Border Wing Home Guards were performing similar duties and discharging same responsibilities. It was contended in that petition that the part time Border Wing Home Guards are entitled to the honorarium and they are to be paid only as and when their services are required and utilized. It was further claimed in opposition in that case that their appointment was not to exceed for a period of more than three months except in cases where it was recommended otherwise by the authorities of the Border Security Force. It was noticed by the Apex Court that duties of the permanent Border Wing Home Guards and part time Border Wing Home Guards are the same and performed under the same situation and circumstances but there has been disparity in their emoluments and other facilities, necessities or performing their duties. In the background of the facts of that case, it was held by the Apex Court that the part time Border Wing Home Guards cannot be treated as volunteers engaged in casual nature of work so as to be termed as part time staff of Government of West Bengal and as such they cannot be treated differently from the permanent staff and arc to be accorded parity with them.
14. Reverting to the submissions made across the bar, the learned counsel for the petitioners laid considerable stress on the point that the aforesaid decision being of larger Bench, it has over-riding effect over all other decisions cited across the bar by the learned counsel for the respondents and in connection with this proposition, the learned counsel has drawn attention to the decisions of the Apex Court in State of U.P. v. Ram Chandra Trivedi, AIR 1976 SC 2547 and in Ishwari Khetan Sugar Mills v. State of U. P., AIR 1980 SC 1955. In Union of India v. K.S. Subramanian, AIR 1976 SC 2433, the quintessence of the observations is that proper course for a High Court would be to try to find out and follow the opinion expressed by lager Benches of Supreme Court in preference to those expressed by Smaller Benches of the Court. That is the practice followed by this (S.C.) itself. The practice has now crystallized into a rule of law declared by the Supreme Court. If, however, the High Court is of opinion that the views expressed by larger Benches of Supreme Court are not applicable to the facts of the case, it should have said so giving reasons supporting its point of view. In Chandra Trivedi's case, the Apex Court held that conflict between the views expressed by larger Benches and Smaller Benches of Supreme Court, the High Courts have to follow the practice already being followed by the Supreme Court itself in this behalf and to find out and to follow the views expressed by larger Bench. In Ishwari Khetan Sugar Mill's case (supra), it was observed by the Apex Court that controversy in decisions of Supreme Court. Such decisions are impliedly overruled to the extent of conflict in them by a later larger Constitution Bench on that point. The following decisions should also be reckoned with which have bearing on the controversy involved in this case. In R.L.D. Corporation v. Labour Court, (1990) 3 SCC, the substance of what was observed was that a subsequent Bench would not follow the decision of an earlier Bench when it was per incuriam, i.e., made in ignorance of a relevant constitutional or statutory provision or of some decision of its own. Yet another ground cited for not following a precedent would be social, industrial or legislative changes which call for a wider outlook or a progressive interpretation. In the aforesaid decision and also in Keshau Mills v. I.T. Commissioner, AIR 1965 SC 1630, it was observed that in reviewing an earlier decision, however, the Court would take into consideration the fact that the said decision has been followed in a large number of cases. In Indra v. U.O.I., AIR 1993 SC 477, it was observed that where there has been no uniformity In previous decisions, the later Court would examine the principle in the light of the Constitution and the materials placed before it. In Collector v. Raja, (1985) 3 SCC 1, the Apex Court in para 13 observed that the Court would not depart from a long settled interpretation solely depending upon the facts of a given case.
15. Extracting the ratio decidendi of any decided case is as difficult as excavating a vein of gold from a mine. As Solmond points out in his book of Jurisprudence, for every tonne of material quarried, one finds less than an ounce of gold. The exercise of distinguishing a precedent is exercise in Ingenuity and to do so, one has to arrive at the principle laid down in the precedent or the ratio decidendi. Bearing the above in mind, I proceed to glean whether the ratio flowing from the Dharwad District P.W.D. Literate Daily Wage Employees' Association and others' case as followed in the recent case in State of West Bengal and Ors. v. Pantha Chatterjee and Ors., 2003 AIR SCW 3316, can usefully be applied to the facts of the present case in juxtaposition with the citations made by the learned counsel for the respondents. The aforesaid decision was rendered noticing a three-Judge Bench decision in Randhir Singh v. Union of India and Ors., (1982) 1 SCC 618 ; Dhirendra Chamoli and Anr. v. State of U.P., (1986) 1 SCC 637 ; Surinder Singh and Anr. v. Engineer-in-Chief, C.P.W.D. and Ors., 1988 (1) AWC 414 (SC) : (1988) 1 SCC 639 ; Bhagwan Dass and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Ors., (1987) 4 SCC 634 and Daily Rated Casual Labour Employed under P & T. Department v. Union of India and Ors.. (1988) 1 SCC 122. Yet another case noticed in this decision is U.P. Income Tax Department Contingent Paid Staff Welfare Association v. Union of India and Ors., (1987) Suppl. SCC 668. ft is in the above conspectus that the Apex Court gave directions of paying minimum of the pay scale. It is a well considered decision after analysing all the aspects on the point. This three-Judge Bench decision held good the ratio by applying the principles of 'equal pay for equal work' that those daily wagers discharging duties similar to those in the regular employment of the Government should at least be entitled to receive the minimum of the pay scale. In Putti Lal's case, the ratio in that case flowed from the background that the State of Uttranchal had framed a scheme for regularisation of daily workers. The facts of the case under reference have close resemblance to the cases in hand inasmuch as in the instant case too, the State of U.P. has issued relevant Government order extending coverage of its regularisation Rules to the daily wager employees in the local bodies. By this reckoning, in my considered view, the ratio flowing from the decision of Dharwad case and also Putti Lal's case, squarely applies to the case of daily wage employees who have invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution by means of the present petitions aforestated. It would be apt to notice here that the decisions cited by the learned counsel for the respondents do not appear to have reviewed Putti Lal's case with further clarification and elucidations and the antinomy, if at all discernible between citations across the bar, must await for settlement by the Apex Court. The two-Judge Bench decisions cited by the learned counsel for the respondents do not erode the authorities of the four decisions aforestated rendered by Constitution Bench and they have the force of law. As stated supra, the three-Judge Bench decision cited by the learned counsel for the respondent cannot be imported for application in the instant case inasmuch as the said decision has been rendered in different context and different perspective.
16. The learned counsel for the respondents again harked back to the decision rendered in State of Haryana v. Tilak Raj's case, and propounded that the two Judge Bench decision rendered in State of Haryana and Ors. v. Jasmer Singh and Ors., 1997 (1) AWC 2.145 (NOC) : (1996) 11 SCC 77, has been noticed. As noticed above, both the decisions have been rendered on the aspect of a value judgment of the authorities concerned which, according to the said decision, if arrived at bona fide, reasonably and rationally was not open to interference by the Court. Coming back to the instant case, the State Government took policy decision for regularisation of the services of daily wage employees in the local bodies and consequently, extended coverage of the Regularisation Rules to these daily wage employees and it is in this perspective that I feel called to apply the ratio flowing from Dharwad case as also Putti Lal's case. Reverting to Tilak Raj's case, in this case, the Apex Court converged to the principle stretching further the ratio in Randhir Singh's case on the basis of observation in that case that judgment of administrative authorities concerning the responsibilities which attach to the post and the degree of reliability expected of an incumbent would be a value judgment of the authorities concerned which if arrived at bona fide, reasonably and rationally was not open to interference by the Court. It was a decision different from the principles in Dharwad case and Putti Lal's case taking into reckoning the fact that denial of minimum pay in the pay scales would amount to exploitation of labour and would be compelling worker to work even as a casual labourer on starvation wages. The petitioners in the instant case are class IV daily wage employees performing duties of electrician, Safai Karamcharies, Beldar, etc. and the nature of duties being performed by them are such that they do not entail any of the nuances of requirements as postulated by the Apex Court in Tilak Raj's case.
17. Besides the aforestated cases, certain other decisions on the point should also be reckoned with. In Jaipal and Ors. etc. v. State of Haryana and Ors. etc., (1998) 3 SCC 354, the Apex Court held it to be a constitutional obligation to ensure equal pay for equal work where the two sets of employees discharge similar responsibilities under similar working conditions. In this case, the plea of temporary or casual nature of employment or full time and part time employees had wrecked on disapproval of the Court. In Dhirendra Chamoli and Anr. v. State of U.P., (1986) 1 SCC 637, the quintessence of what was held was that casual workers could not be denied same emoluments and benefits as admissible to temporary employees on the premises that they had acquiesced to the employment with full knowledge of their disadvantage. In Grih Kalyan Kendra Workers' Union v. Union of India and Ors., (1991) 1 SCC 619, the Apex Court quintessentially held that though on facts, no discrimination was found but the principle of 'equal pay for equal work' was upheld and recognised where all were placed similarly and discharging same duties and responsibilities irrespective of casual nature of work. This right had been held to have assumed status of a fundamental right of 'equality' in Articles 14 and 16. In Daily rated Casual Labour through Bhartiya Dak Tar Mazdoor Manch v. Union of India and Ors., (1988) 1 SCC 122, the substance of what was held by the Apex Court was that right of daily rated causal workers in the P & T. Department was recognised and they were directed to be paid in minimum of the scale as was admissible to the regular workers as both discharged similar work and responsibilities.
18. In the perspective of the above discussions, I feel called to state that ratio of a case has been likened to a lump of clay, which a potter can stretch and shape within limits. If he wants to starch it he can, or he can press it back into a lump. A ratio cannot be stretched indefinitely any more than a lump of clay for there is a limit beyond which the generalisation of the statement of specific facts cannot go. When an unmanageable number of such lumps accumulate, they may be gathered together and rolled into a single big lump and the moulding prices begins anew. In the instant case, I have tried to gather together and rolled into a single big lump all the decisions on the point which have accumulated unto this date. I would also not refrain from stating that analogy is an imperfect form of inductive logic which proceeds on the basis of a number of points of resemblance of attributes or relations between cases. Not only does it emphasize the quantitative nature of resemblance but also the relevance and importance of such attributes or relations which are ultimately matters of practical judgment. Reasoning or analogy has been classified into three categories, (1) Unius ad alterum (a simple comparison which indicates a relationship of similarity in a certain respect), (2) Duarum and terium (based on the proportional relationship in common of two things to a third thing), and (3) Plurium ad plura, (a relationship of proportionality, i.e., A is to B as C is to D). In the instant case, the formula of simple comparison indicating a relationship of similarity in a certain respect should be followed from the Constitution Bench decision in Randhir Singh's case which has been followed with approval in D.S. Nakara v. Union of India, Dharwad District P.W.D. Literate Daily Wage Employees Association v. State of Karnataka and Putti Lal's case and in my view, that would be the correct position.
19. To cap it all, since the petitioners in the instant case have been discharging their duties as class IV daily wage employees prior to June, 1991 to the satisfaction of their authority and there is nothing on the record to indicate that they were at all less efficient at any time qua the regular appointees, I feel called to hold that the petitioners are entitled to minimum of the pay scales pending their regularisation by the department concerned.
20. Before parting, I would also notice decision of the Apex Court in Express Newspaper Ltd. v. Union of India, AIR 1958 SC 578, in which the Apex Court elaborated on wages (1) the living wage, (2) the fair wage, and (3) the minimum wage. The Apex Court further elaborated that the bare subsistence minimum wage is a wage which would be sufficient to cover the bare physical needs of a worker and his family, i.e., a rate which has got to be paid to the worker irrespective of the capacity of the industry to pay. The statutory minimum wage is the minimum prescribed by the statute and it will provide for some measure of education, medical requirements and amenities. The living wage should enable the male earner to provide for himself and his family not merely the bare essentials of food, clothing and shelter but a measure of frugal comfort including education for children, protection against ill-health and misfortunes including old age. In the instant case, the minimum wages being paid to the petitioners is too exiguous to meet the basic requirements of the petitioners and their families considering the spiraling prices and high cost of living. Taking all this into reckoning, it would subserve the needs of the petitioners if they are given minimum of the pay scales.
21. In the above conspectus, I am inclined to phrase directions in the following words for action and compliance :
(1) The Nagar Palika Parishads/Nagar Nigams, are directed to process relevant details and send the list of all such daily wage employees who were engaged on or prior to June 29, 1991 and are still continuing along with requisite papers for creation of posts to the State Government within a period of two months and the State Government in its turn shall pass appropriate orders for creation of posts within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of the papers. In the case of those Nagar Nigams/Nagar Palika Parishads which have already submitted such lists for creation of post, the State Government shall pass appropriate speaking orders in this regard within a period of six weeks from today.
(2) The appointing authority after receipt of orders from the State Government for creation of posts, shall consider the matter of regularisation under the provisions of Regularisation Rules In relation to class IV daily wage employees already working in their service for the period indicated above within a period not later than six weeks thereafter In accordance with the prescribed procedure and having due regard to the Government order dated 10.7.2003.
(3) The Nagar Palika Parishads/ Nagar Nigams shall initiate action for regularisation on the posts already created and existing taking into reckoning the reservation policy and no appointment shall be made upon any of the posts advertised by the Nagar Nigams/ Nagar Palika Parishads as backlog vacancies for SC/ST/OBC under the directions of the State Government and appointment pursuant to such directions shall remain in abeyance till such time, all the posts created and existing are utilised in regularisation of daily wage employees working in respective Nagar Nigams/ Nagar Palika Parishads.
(4) All the daily wage employees in class IV category who have completed 10 years of service as on June 29, 2001 are entitled to get minimum of the pay scales of the regularly appointed employees.
22. The petitions are allowed in terms of the aforestated directions.