Judgment:
Mathur, J.
1. This matter has been placed before us by the order of the Hon'ble Chief Justice on a reference made by the learned Single Judge (Quorum B.S. Chauhan J.) to examine the correctness of the judgments of this Court viz. Vinod Kumar.v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. (1), Om Prakash Meghwal v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. (2), Chambal Vikas Yantrik Sinchai Vibhag Sangh v. State of Raj. and Ors. (3) and unreported judgment dated 19.5.93 in Rana Ram and Ors. (4), interpreting the provisions of Sub-rule (3) & (4) of Rule 3 of the Rajasthan (Public Works Department (B&R;) including Garden, Irrigation, Water Works and Ayurved Departments) work-charge Employees Service Rules, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules, 1964) and the Notification dated 19.8.1980.
2. The material facts to bring out the points for consideration in the instant writ petition lie in a narrow compass. The petitioners were engaged as Beldar by the 4th respondent Executive Engineer, Public Health Engineering Department (P.H.E.D.), Jodhpur on daily wages fixed by the government and revised from time to time. Each of the petitioners have been appointed on different dates, but most of them have been working as work charge employee since 1988. They were engaged to complete specific Work and after completion of the work, they were shifted time to time to other schemes or the work as per the record. They are governed by the Work Charge Rules, 1964. The grievance of the petitioners is that inspite of having satisfactorily worked continuously for 2 years, they have not been conferred the status of semi permanent in disregard to Sub-rule (3) of Rule 3 of the Work Charge Rules, 1964. It is also averred that while as a work charge employee, they are getting maximum Rs. 650/- per month whereas persons, who are doing the same work are getting salary in the regular payscale drawing more than Rs. 1500/- per month. Thus, the petitioners have sought direction against the respondents to confer upon them the status of semi permanent employee and fix them in regular pay scale on the post of Beldar from the date of their initial appointment. A further direction has been sought to make payment of difference of wages/salary which has been paid to the petitioners and which is required to be paid to the Beldar in the regular pay scale along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum. It is not in dispute that during the pendency of the writ petition, the petitioners have been granted the status of semi permanent and they have been given all the consequential benefits by orders dated 24.8.95 (Annexure-R/1) and 16.9.95 (Annexure-R/2). It was contended before the learned Single Judge that as required by Sub-rule (3) of Rule 3 of the Work Charge Rules, 1964 a work charge employee who has put in 2 years service satisfactorily is eligible for getting status of semi permanent. The learned counsel referred to various decisions of this Court referred to above, wherein a direction has been given that all those employees, who have completed 2 years of service satisfactorily be declared as semi permanent. In all the case the contention of the respondents that a prior sanction of the State for conferring the status of semi permanent is necessary has been rejected. A submission was made on behalf of the learned counsel appearing for the State that all the cases referred by the learned counsel for the petitioners does not lay down the correct law inasmuch as that this will make the mandatory requirement of Sub-rule (4) nugatory. The learned Single Judge expressed agreement with the learned counsel for the State that the interpretation of Sub-rule (3) of Rule 3 as given by this Court in different judgments referred to above has rendered Sub-rule (4) of Rule 3 otiose and further that the court has not given any effect to the words 'or more' along with 2 years service in Sub-rule (3) of Rule 3. The learned Judge further observed that cumulative effect of reading of Sub-rules (3) & (4) of Rule 3 together is that if in the opinion of the authority concern the service record of the casual work charge employees who have completed two years of more service is found to be satisfactory they can be given the status of semi permanent subject to the sanction/approval of the competent authority. Thus, the question which springs up for consideration is,
'Whether it will be sound exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to compel the State Government, by issuing a writ of mandamus, on interpretation of Sub-rule (3) & (4) of Rule 3 of the Work Charge Rules, 1964 to provide status of semi permanent to all work charge employees who have completed two years continuous service satisfactorily or to provide status of permanent, to such employees who have completed ten years service or more satisfactorily, ignoring the financial constraints in grant of sanction posts by the competent authority?'
3. In order to better appreciate the controversy involved, it would be convenient to read relevant provisions of Rule 3 of Work Charge Rules, 1964, which is extracted as follows:
'(1) Work Charged employees (including the regular technical staff of Water Works Department) for the purpose of these rules shall be divided into the following three categories:-
(i) Permanent Status,
(ii) Semi-permanent status, and
(iii) Casual;
Provided, however, that nothing in these rules shall entitle any work-charged employee, categorised permanent or semi- permanent to claim he status of benefits of permanancy or semi-permanancy to which regular Government employee is entitled under the Rajasthan Service Rules.
(2) Employees, who have been in service for ten years or more, shall be eligible for the status of permanent work-charged employees provided their record of service in the opinion of the competent authority is satisfactory.
(3) Employees in continuous service for two years or more exceptthose covered by Sub-rule (1) shall be eligible for the status ofsemi-permanent work charged employees or of semi- permanentregular technical staff, provided their record of service in the opinionof the competent authority, is satisfactory.
(4) No employee shall acquire the status specified in Sub-rules (2) and (3) without the prior sanction of the competent authority, as may be notified by the Head of the Department from time to time.
Clarification:- It has been observed that in the matter of declaring of semi-permanent or permanent status of work-charged employees under Rule 3 of the Rajasthan Public Works Department (B&R;) including Garden, Irrigation, Water works and Ayurvedic Department Work Charged Employees Service Rules, 1964, a uniform policy is not being adopted by the departments where work-charged employees are engaged. The casual work-charged employees are declared as semi-permanent and allowed regular pay scale with other benefits like leave, medical facilities, travelling and daily allowances etc., as soon as they complete 2 years under the pea that it is obligatory to declare them semi - permanent on completion of 2 years according to Rule 3 of the above said Rules.
It is clarified that Rule 3(3) only mentions that an employee becomes entitled to be declared as semi-permanent on completion of two years service provided his service record is satisfactory and sanctioned post is available besides other conditions, such as age at the time of recruitment and medical fitness etc., are fulfilled. It is, therefore, enjoined upon all the concerned departments that the casual workers should not be declared semi-permanent on completion of two years service only and allowed pay scales unless other conditions mentioned above are also fulfilled, (vide D.O.P. Notification No. P.5 (11) DOP (A-II/74) dated 19.8.1980).'
4. Sub-rules (3) of Rules 3 provides that an employee in continuous service for 2 years or more shall be eligible for the status of semi permanent and Sub-rule (4) further provides that the condition precedent for grant of such semi permanent status is to have prior sanction of the competent authority as may be notified by the Head of the Department. The effect of declaring a work-charged employee as semi permanent caries with it certain benefits i.e. he shall be entitled to a regular pay scale under Rules 12 and increments under Rule 13 and Dearness Allowance etc. under Rule 14. Similarly he will be entitled to, benefits of leave as given in Rule 15 and other necessary facilities like medical under Rule 21 and provident fund under Rule 22. Therefore, there can be no escape from the conclusion that it involves financial implications. In this context the Sub-rule (4) which provides for a sanction of the post prior to giving of status of semi permanent employee gathers importance.
5. In all the cases referred by the respective parties, the question involves two aspects i.e. equal pay for equal work and continuing casual employment for a long period. A.K. Mathur J. as his lordship then was considering the question of continuing a work-charged employee for a long period on daily wages a complex human problem, directed to declare the work-charged employees semi permanent on completion of 2 years of service satisfactorily and status of permanent employee on completion of 10 years service without considering the effect of Sub-Rule (4) of Rule 3.
In Chambal Vikas Yantrik Sinchai Karamchari Sangh, all the members of the petitioner Sangh were daily rated workers. They were the employees of the common Area Department (CAD) with two wings namely Irrigation and Agriculture. The Rules of 1964 ware made applicable to the Irrigation wing, but not the Agriculture wing, the specific case of the petitioner union was that its members were engaged in CAD Department and were working for the last 7-8 years in the said department, but their services were not regularised as the Work Charge Rules, 1964 were not made applicable to them. The learned Single Judge found that there were no difference in the nature of duties being performed by the employees belonging to Irrigation Wing on the one hand and the Agriculture Wing on the other hand of the CAD Department. In these circumstances, it was held that members of the petitioner union have been subjected to discriminatory treatment and the respondent violated their constitution right of equality enshrined under Article 14 & 16 of the Constitution by denying them the benefit of work-charge pay scale. Accordingly, the learned Single Judge directed to give benefit of Sub-rule(3) of Rule 3 of Work Charge Rules, 1964 to all the employees of the petitioner Union on completion of 2 years service by them in view of the judgment in Om Prakash Meghwal's case. A similar view has been taken by an another learned Singh Judge in Pappu v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. (5). Various decisions of the Apex Court dealing with the twin aspect of equal pay for equal work and continuing casual employment for a long period has been referred and dealt with in The Dharwad Distt. P.W.D. Literate Daily Wages Employees Association and Ors. v. State of Karnataka and Ors. (6). The Apex Court deduced from Articles 14 & 16 in the light of preamble and Article 39(d) of the Constitution the principle of 'equal pay for equal work. In Randhir Singh v. Union of India (7), the claim for equal pay for equal work again arose for consideration of the Apex Court on a petition of persons engaged by Nehru Yuvak Kendras as casual workers on daily wages basis. In the said case the Apex Court directed Central Government to accord to the petitioners, who were employed by the Nehru Yuvak Kendras and who were performing the duties as of Class IV employees, the same salary and conditions of service as received by Class IV employees refused regularisation on the ground that there was no sanctioned post. In the same year in Surendra Singh v. Engineer-in-Chief, C.P.W.D. (8), the Apex Court directed that in case it is not possible to employ the casual workers working in the C.P.W.D. for more than 7 years, to employ them on regular basis for want of suitable number of posts, they may not be denied the equal pay for equal work. The same pay principle was reiterated in the case Bhagwan Das v. State of Haryana (9) and another case Jaipal v. State of Haryana (10). In the case of daily rated casual labours employed by Post and Telegraph Department v. Union of India (11). the Court observed,
'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 departments, where the pay scales are the lowest is not tenable.'
The court also observed that as far as possible security of work should be assured to the employees so that they may contribute to the maximation of production. The Court further observed that the management and the government agencies in particular should not allow workers to remain as casual labours or temporary employees for an unreasonably long period. All these cases were scanned by the Apex Court by a Bench of three Judges in Dharwad Distt. P.W.D. L.D.W. Assocn. v. State of Karnataka (supra). Suffice it to say that the Apex Court while realising the anxiety of the petitioners who waited too long to share the equal benefits mandated by Part IV of the Constitution in respect of their employment observed that the constraints arising out of our connected with availability of State resources cannot be over- ruled. In the said case, Supreme Court instead of straight away giving direction to regularise the services of the work-charge employees asked the State Government by an interim order toprepare a scheme in that regard. Keeping in view the financial constraints, the Apex Court approved the scheme of regularisation of service in phased manner. The Apex Court advised the courts to maintain a judicial restrain and not to unduly burden the State for implementing the constitutional obligation forth with which may create problems and the State may not be able to stand. The relevant portion of the order is extracted as follows:
'We are alive, to the position that the scheme which we have finalised is not the ideal one but as we have already stated, it is the obligation of the Court to individualise justice to suit a given situation in a set of facts that are placed before it. Under the scheme of the Constitution the purse remains in the hands of the Executive. The Legislature of the State controls the Consolidated Fund our of which the expenditure to the incurred in giving effect to the scheme, will have to be met. The flow into the consolidated Fund depends upon the policy of taxation depending perhaps On the capacity of the payer. Therefore, unduly burdening the State for implementing the Constitutional obligation forthwith would create problems which the State may not be able to stand. We have, therefore, made out directions with judicious restraint with the hope and trust that both parties would appreciate and understand the situation. The instrumentality of the State must realise that it is charged with a big trust. The money that flows into the Consolidated Fund and constitutes the resources of the State comes from the people and welfare expenditure that is meted out goes from the same fund back to the people. May be that in every situation the same tax- payer is not the beneficiary. That is an incident of taxation and a necessary concomitant of living within a welfare society.'
6. In the instant case, it is not in dispute that the petitioners are being paid the minimum wages. Therefore, the main question involved is not Of the equal pay but of the conferring the status of semi permanent. Obviously the effect of issuing a writ of declaring the petitioners semi permanent involved financial implications inasmuch as the status of semi permanent carries the benefit of a regular pay scale, increments, Dearness Allowances and other benefits like medical facility, provident fund etc. It is the settled proposition of law that the court should not issue directions to the State authorities to make appointment or grant status which has a consequence of burdening the public exchequer. In Union of India v. Tejaram Parashramji Bombhate and Ors. (12), the Apex Court held that grant of a government sanction is a policy matter involving financial burden and as such no court or Tribunal can compel the government to accord sanction. In Government of Orissa v. Haraprasad Das and Ors. (13), the Apex Court has held that to fulfil or not to fulfil a post is a policy decision and unless, it is shown to be arbitrary it is not open for the court to direct to fill up the vacancy by making appointments. Thus, a direction to grant semi permanent status to a work charge employee in absence of sanction by the State Government under Sub-rule (4) of Rule 3 amounts to giving direction to fill up the vacancy without exactly knowing the financial burden.
7. The scheme of Rule 3 under the Work Charge Rules, 1964 is plain and simple. It provides three categories of work charge employees namely casual, semi permanent and permanent. A work charge employee becomes eligible for the status of permanent on completion of 10 years service or more under Clause (3). An employee in continuous service for2 years or more becomes eligible for the status of semi permanent. The work 'more' signifies that 10 years under Clause (2) or 2 years under clause (3) is the minimum period of eligibility. It has been wrongly construed ignoring the word 'or more' to hold that a work charge employee is to be automatically given the status of permanent workman under Clause (2) on completion of 10 years service and semipermanent status under Clause (3) on completion of 2 years Sub-clause(4) takes care of the financial burden of the State. It prohibits acquiring of. status of permanent or semi permanent under Sub-rule (2) or Sub-rule (3) without a prior sanction of the competent authority. This has been clarified by the Notification dated 19.8.1980. There can be no difficulty if the entire Rules 3 is read as a whole without omitting any part of it. The conclusion is bound to be different if the word employed 'or more' under Sub-rule (3) as well as Sub-rule (4) is omitted. It is not permissible as the sound rule of interpretation of a statute. In State of Bihar v. Hira Lal Kejriwal and Anr. (14), it is held that to ascertain the meaning of a section it is not permissible to omit any part of it. The Apex Court as back as in 1950 in the case of A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras (15), observed that every word of the clause must be given its true and legitimate meaning and in the construction of a statute it is improper to omit any word which has a reasonable and a proper place in it or to refrain from giving effect to its meaning. The Apex Court after scanning number of cases in Sultana Begum v. Prem Chand Jain (16), has laid down the following principle:-
'(1) It is the duty of the Court to avoid a head-on clash between two sections of the Act and to construe the provisions which appear to be in conflict with each to be in such a manner as to harmonise them.
(2) The provisions of one section of a statute cannot be used to defeat the other provisions unless the Court, in spite of its effects, finds it impossible to effect reconciliation between them.
(3) It has to be borne in mind by all the courts all the time that when there are two conflicting provisions in an Act, which cannot be reconciled with each other, they should be so interpreted that, if possible, effect should be given to both. This is the essence of the rule of 'harmonious construction.'
(4) The courts have also to keep in mind that an interpretation which reduces one of the provisions as a 'dead letter' or 'useless lumber' is not harmonious construction.
8. Thus, the interpretation making any provision as suplusage is not permissible. The rule of interpretation does not permit to render any particular part of the provisions as otiose. The presumption is that the Legislature has not left any lacuna and the courts are bound to effect every word as none of the words interpreted in the rules or enactments can be rendered meaningless. While interpreting the courts are bound to give full effect to each and every word contained in the provision. In view of the aforesaid, we are of the considered view that a work charge employee on completion of two years service only becomes eligible for consideration of confirming semi permanent status. The said status cannot be confirmed unless the service rendered by him is found to be satisfactory and sanctioned post is available besides other conditions such as age at the time of recruitment and medical fitness etc. Even if the petitioners are entitled to grant of semi permanent status after completing 2 years continuous service from their date of initial appointment, it will not be sound exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to take upon itself the function of the statutory authority by directing to grant to workman semi permanent status. The only direction which can be given to the concerned authority or the court is to consider the claim of the petitioners in accordance with the rules. In the instant case the petitioners have been granted the status of semi permanent as back as in the year 1995 by Annexures R/l & R/2. Thus, no writ is required to be issued.
9. Consequently we find no merit in this writ petition and the same is dismissed. There shall be no order as to cost.