Judgment:
V.K. Jhanji, J.
1. In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners are seeking a direction to the respondents to grant the petitioners the higher pay scale plus other allowances presently applicable to the security officers and security guards working with the respondent-bank on the principle of equal pay for equal work.
2. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that the writ petition is totally misconceived and deserves to be dismissed. Petitioners Nos. 1 to 3 were earlier in the employment of Aecumeasures Punjab Limited as security officer and security guards respectively. The said company was ordered to be wound up under the orders of this court in Company Petition No. 35 of 1985. The official liquidator took possession of the properties of the company. As the official liquidator was notin possession of funds to meet the watch and ward charges for the security staff of the company, he filed Company Petition No. 114 of 1987, under the proviso to Rule 292 read with Rule 9 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959, against the respondent-bank for a direction to the respondents who were secured creditors to advance adequate funds to the official, liquidator to enable him to meet the watch and ward charges to be made to the security staff and the amount so paid be treated as an advance to be recovered out of the assets of the company in priority to its debts. Vide order dated December 17, 1987, passed in Company Petition No. 114 of 1987, D. V, Sehgal J. (as he then was), directed respondents Nos. 1 and 2 to pay Rs. 2,050 each, per month to the official liquidator. The order in this regard may be noticed :
'Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 are further directed to pay a sum of Rs. 2,050 each, per month from November 1, 1987. The amount so payable by them for the months of November and December, 1987, shall be paid by December 24, 1987. In future, they shall pay the like amount every month by the 20th of the respective month. All the above amounts paid or to be paid by respondents Nos. 1 and 2 shall be treated as advance which is ordered to be paid out of the assets of the company in priority to its debts. The petition is disposed of accordingly.'
3. Pursuant to the afore-mentioned order, the respondents have been advancing amounts to the official liquidator and the petitioners have been receiving the amount of their salary from the official liquidator. The petitioners were never employed by the respondent-hank, rather they were employees of the company to whom the banks had advanced huge loan. It was in pursuance of the orders of this court that the respondents advanced money to the official liquidator on behalf of the company to be paid as salary to these security guards. The amount so advanced is recoverable from the assets of the company in priority to its other debts, The petitioners have no legal right on the basis of which a direction can be issued to the respondents to pay them the salary which is payable to The other security officers/security guards of the bank. The other relief, as sought in the petition, for regularisation in service of the respondents too cannot be allowed as neither the petitioners are employees of the bank nor they were appointed or employed by the respondents or are performing the duties of the bank.
4. Accordingly, this petition shall stand dismissed. No costs.