U.P. INCOME-TAX DEPARTMENT CONTINGENT PAID STAFF WELFARE ASSOCIATION vs. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
What did the Supreme Court hold?
The Tribunal, noting the similarity of the case to the judgment in Daily Rated Casual Labour Employed under P & T Department, through Bhartiya Dak Tar Mazdoor Manch v. Union of India and Ors. (JT. 1987 [4] S.C. 164), allowed the petition. The respondents were directed to pay wages to the contingent paid staff of the Income-tax Department throughout India, performing Class IV duties, at rates equivalent to the minimum pay in the pay scale of regularly employed workers in corresponding cadres, without increments, effective from December 1, 1986. They were also entitled to corresponding dearness allowance and additional dearness allowance. Existing benefits were to continue. Furthermore, the respondents were directed to prepare a scheme on a rational basis for absorbing, as far as possible, contingent paid staff who had continuously worked for over one year as Class IV employees. The Tribunal was not satisfied with the existing scheme for absorption.
What were the facts?
The petitioner, the U.P. Income-tax Department Contingent Paid Staff Welfare Association, represented contingent paid staff working as Class IV employees in the Income-tax Department. These employees had been rendering service for many years but their services were not being regularised. They were being paid wages as daily rated labourers, which were lower than those paid to regularly employed Class IV employees. The Association filed a Writ Petition seeking a mandamus to direct the respondents to pay them equivalent salary and allowances and to regularise their services. The respondents did not deny the wage disparity and referred to government orders for regularisation under certain conditions. The Court noted the similarity of the issues with previous cases concerning daily rated casual labour in the Posts and Telegraph Department.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the contingent paid staff of the Income-tax Department, who have been working as Class IV employees for a considerable period, are entitled to wages equivalent to the minimum pay in the pay scale of regularly employed workers in corresponding cadres, along with dearness and additional dearness allowances, without increments, from a specified date? (Question of law and fact, concerning principles of equal pay for equal work and employment conditions). 2. Whether the respondents should be directed to prepare a scheme for absorbing, as far as possible, the contingent paid staff who have been continuously working for more than one year as Class IV employees in the Income-tax Department? (Question of law and fact, concerning administrative policy and regularisation). Assessee's Contentions: The petitioner argued that their members, despite long service as Class IV employees, were not being regularised and were paid lower wages than regular employees. They sought equal pay and regularisation. Revenue's Contentions: The respondents did not deny the wage disparity and referred to existing government orders for regularisation, implying that the existing framework should be followed.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORDER This is a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India . .,, The petitioner in this case is the U.P. Income-tax Department B c -< Contingent Paid Staff Welfare Association. The members of the said association, as the name of the Association itself suggests, are the D contingent paid staff in the Income-tax Department. Their complaint is that even though they have been rendering the service as Class IV employees in the Income-tax Department for a large number of years, the Income-tax Department has not taken steps to regularise -... their services and to absorb them as members of the Class IV services ·- and that they are being paid wages as daily rated labourers lower than the salary and allowances which the Class IV employees of the Department have been drawing. They pray for the issue of a writ in the nature of mandamus to the respondents to pay them the same salary and allowances which are paid to the employees of the Department in corresponding posts and also for regularising their service. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respon- dents. The respondents do not deny that the contingent paid staff are being paid daily wages lower than what is being paid to regular emp- loyees. It also refers to certain Government order providing for reg- ularisation under certain terms and conditions. When this petition came up for admission the Court directed that this case should be listed after the disposal of the Writ Petitions No. 373 and 302 of 1986 instituted by the daily rated casual labour employed in the Posts and Telegraph Department, since the ques- tions involved in this case and in those two writ petitions were almost the same. By its judgment dated 27.10.1987 in Daily Rated Casual Labour employed under P & T Department E F G H •'
172 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1988] 2 S.C.R. A though Bhartiya Dak Tar Mazdoor Manch v. Union of India & Ors., (JT. !987 4 S.C. 164, this Court has issued the following directions as regards the claim of the daily rated workmen involved therein for higher wages:- B c D E "We accordingly direct the Union of India and the other respondents to pay wages to the workmen who are employed as casual labourers belonging to the several categories of employees referred to above in the Posts & Telegraph Department at the rates equivalent to the minimum pay in the pay scales of the regularly employed workers in the corresponding cadres but without any increments with effect from 5th February, 1986 on which date the first of the above two petitions, namely, Writ Petition No. 302 of 1986 was filed. The petitioners are entitled .to corresponding Dearness Allowance and Addi- tional Dearness Allowance, if any, payable thereon. What- ever other benefits which are now being enjoyed by the casual labourers shall continue to be extended to them." On the claim for regularisation of the services of the workmen involved in the above-mentioned case, this Court issued the following direction:- "We, therefore, direct all the respondents to pre- pare a scheme on a rational basis for absorbing as far as possible the casual labourers who have been continuously working for more than one year in the Posts and Tele- graph Department." F The facts and circumstances of the present case are similar to the facts and circumstances of the case relating to the daily rated labour in the Posts and Telegraph Department. We have carefully considered the pleas in the counter-affidavit. The Government orders providing for the absorption of the contingent paid staff are hedged in by a number of conditions. We also find that many such employees G have been working on daily wages for nearly eight years and more. We are not satisfied with the scheme which is now in force. We are, therefore, of the view that in this case also we should issue the same directions as in the above decision for the reasons given by the Court in the above decision. We accordingly allow this Writ Petition and direct the respondents to pay wages to the workmen who are emp- H Joyed as the contingent paid staff of the Income-tax Department ..
~. ' U.P. INCOME-TAXDEPARTMENTv. U.0.1. [VENKATARAMIAH,J.J 173 throughout India, doing the work of Class IV employees at the A rates equivalent to the minimum pay in the pay-scale of the regularly employed workers in the corresponding cadres, without any incre- ments with effect from lst December, 1986. Such workmen are also entitled to corresponding Dearness Allowance and Additional Dear- ness Allowance payable thereon. Whatever other benefits which are 8 now being enjoyed by the said workman shall continue to be exten- ded to them. We further direct the respondents to prepare a scheme on a rational basis for absorbing as far as possible the contingent paid - ( . staff of the Income-tax Department who have been continuously working for more than one year as Class IV employees in the Income-tax Deparment. c 1 This petition is accordingly disposed of with no order as to .J.. costs. S.L. Petition allowed.
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Ratul Boro vs. The Union Of INDIA And 4 OrsGauhati · 14 Oct 2026
- Jashwant Sharma vs. The Union Of INDIA And A4 OrsGauhati · 14 Oct 2026
- Tvl. Jeyarani Shopping Centre vs. The Deputy State Tax Officer -1/The Deputy Commercial Tax OfficerMadras · 14 Oct 2026
- Rohan Tanna vs. Directorate General Of Goods And Services Tax IntelligenceChhattisgarh · 14 Oct 2026
- Dipak Saikia vs. The Union Of INDIA And 4 OrsGauhati · 14 Oct 2026
