JUDGMENT : SABYASACHI BHATTACHARYYA, J. 1. Both the appeals arise out of connected matters and hence are taken up together for hearing. The appeals arise out of two writ petitions filed by the Nagar Palika Sharmik Sangh, a Union of Daily Rated Mazdoors (DRMs) working with the Port Blair Municipal Council (PBMC). The concerned DRMs in the matter out of which MAT/10/2024 arises where initially engaged with the Andaman Public Works Department (APWD) and later on taken in on the rolls of the PBMC whereas those in MAT/11/2024 have been all along working with the PBMC. 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows: 3. By an Office Memorandum dated June 7, 1988 issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pension, Department of Personnel and Training, in respect of engagement of casual workers in Central Government offices, certain guidelines were issued. Clause (i) of the same is important in the present context, which provided that where the nature of work entrusted to the casual workers and regular employees is the same, the casual workers may be paid at the rate of 1/30th of the pay at the minimum of the relevant pay scale plus dearness allowance for work of eight hours a day. 4. Subsequently, another Office Memorandum was issued by the office of the Labour Commissioner, Directorate of Employment and Training which was contrary to the Office Memorandum dated June 7, 1988 in some respects, which prompted a challenge to the same by way of a writ petition bearing WP/268/2019, which was disposed of on December 13, 2019, thereby holding inter alia, that the impugned Office Memorandum dated September 22, 2017 was read to mean that it will apply to all Daily Rated Casual Workers engaged by the Administration irrespective of the department and irrespective of the fact that the post against which they are discharging duties are sanctioned or not. Further, a Daily Rated Casual Worker engaged by the Andaman and Nicobar Administration in any department will be entitled to 1/30th of the pay at the minimum of the relevant pay scale plus dearness allowance for work of eight hours a day on every day of their engagement on and from June 07, 1988. 5. The Administration preferred an appeal bearing MA/9/2020 against the said order which was decided by the concerned Division Bench on December 19, 2022. 5. The Administration preferred an appeal bearing MA/9/2020 against the said order which was decided by the concerned Division Bench on December 19, 2022. The order of the learned Single Judge was modified to the extent that the benefits to be given to the concerned DRMs would accrue from the date of the Circular i.e. from September 22, 2017 and not from 1988. However, the Division Bench affirmed the observation of the learned Single Judge that no distinction should be made between the DRMs working against the sanctioned posts and those casually engaged by the State. 6. Subsequently, upon a contrary order being passed by the Administration, a contempt application was filed and the matter went up to the Supreme Court which proceedings, however, are not germane for the present consideration. 7. The present writ petitions were filed by the respondent no. 1-union on the ground that some of the members of the said union were deprived of the benefits under an Order dated August 10, 2023 issued by the Andaman & Nicobar Administration, by which effect was given to the Division Bench direction to accord the benefit to all DRMs in terms of the Office Memorandum dated September 22, 2017. 8. The learned Single Judge, while deciding both the writ petitions, directed the PBMC to provide the benefit of 1/30th pay of the minimum of the relevant pay scale plus dearness allowance to the members of the petitioners in the writ petitions. Challenging the same, the present appeals have been preferred. Challenging the same, the present appeals have been preferred. 9. It is argued by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Administration/appellant that the writ court erred in law in granting the benefits in a blanket fashion to all members of the writ petitioner-union whereas the Administration had, by a reasoned decision, given such benefits only to the eligible candidates. 10. In such context, learned counsel places reliance on the minutes of a meeting of September 1, 2023 which reported that the data provided by some of the sections regarding the DRMs in PBMC was not there as they had mentioned only ‘Muster roll’ which was vague in nature. Accordingly, it was observed that data was to be re-collected regarding the employees by way of either the Muster roll against estimated work or the Muster roll against seasonal work. Accordingly, it was observed that data was to be re-collected regarding the employees by way of either the Muster roll against estimated work or the Muster roll against seasonal work. It was further recorded therein that proper documentary evidence of approval sought from the Competent Authority was needed to be submitted for the record and further course of action. Also, certain names of employees were appearing who were currently not working in the PBMC and, as such, the list was required to be bifurcated between those currently working and those who were not. 11. It is argued that such exercise was painstakingly carried out by the Administration, pursuant to which the Office Order dated July 18, 2023 was issued whereby the DRMs who are eligible were given such benefits whereas the others, who were ineligible, were not accorded the same. It is argued that the extension of the benefits in a blanket fashion takes away the discretion vested in the PBMC to ascertain as to which of the DRMs are eligible for the benefit and who are not. 12. It is argued that several of the persons whose causes are being espoused by the respondent No. 1-Union are no longer working for the PBMC whereas others render service only of a seasonal nature. 13. Learned counsel for the appellant relies on the EPF payments of the employees as an indicator of which of the employees were in continuous service. 14. It is argued that in the absence of such details, the learned Single Judge erred in granting the benefits to all the members of the Respondent No. 1- Union. 15. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents in the appeals argues that specific lists were given in the writ petitions, including all details regarding the eligible persons who were left out, including their initial dates of joining, total number of years worked under PBMC, dates of birth, age and place of posting section/VI vision. 16. It is argued that such names found place in separate Notes given by the Administrative Officer of the PBMC where it was acknowledged that the list of workers whose names appeared in the Muster Rolls are engaged in sanitation work and in various sections of the PBMC. 16. It is argued that such names found place in separate Notes given by the Administrative Officer of the PBMC where it was acknowledged that the list of workers whose names appeared in the Muster Rolls are engaged in sanitation work and in various sections of the PBMC. The list was enclosed with the request to carefully examine the details and certify whether the employees mentioned in the list were engaged in PBMC prior to September 1, 2017 and whether they are still serving under the Council. Notably, the names of all the persons for whom the writ petitions were filed, all of whom are members of the respondent No. 1-union, found place in the said Muster roll engaged in various sections of PBMC, which list was furnished by PBMC itself. Thus, it is argued that there could not have been any doubt regarding the eligibility of the said persons for the benefit in question. 17. Learned counsel for the respondents seeks to rely on several judgements to argue that the issue of payment of 1/30th has been conclusively decided time and again by the Labour Court and the writ courts, which has been affirmed up to this Court and not interfered with by the Supreme Court. 18. Learned counsel for the appellants, on the other hand, relies on State of Punjab and others vs. Jagjit Singh and others reported at (2017) 1 SCC 148 , inter alia for the proposition that with regard to the principle of “equal pay for equal work” the onus of proof of parity in a duties and responsibilities lies on the persons who claims it. It is contended that in the present case, the onus was not discharged for each of the particular members of the respondent No. 1-Union individually. 19. Lastly, it is argued that the issue ought to have been relegated to the Labour Court. 20. Upon a comprehensive examination of the materials on record, it is seen that the premise of the impugned judgement was that there was no indication from the pleadings filed before the court as to the basis for excluding the members of the writ petitioner-union despite their names featuring in the Note dated June 13, 2023. 20. Upon a comprehensive examination of the materials on record, it is seen that the premise of the impugned judgement was that there was no indication from the pleadings filed before the court as to the basis for excluding the members of the writ petitioner-union despite their names featuring in the Note dated June 13, 2023. This exclusion was held to be all the most striking in view of a list appended to the writ petitions which shows that all the members of the petitioners have continuously served under the PBMC for a substantial number of years. 21. There was no indication in the pleadings or the documents disclosed by the respondents in the writ petition that the DRMs who were granted the benefit of enhanced pay were on a different footing than the petitioners before the Court. 22. It is clear from the arguments of the appellants that they primarily rely on the minutes of the meeting dated September 1, 2023. However, the said meeting of the concerned Committee was merely a precursor of the benefit being granted to some of the DRMs selectively. The meeting merely required further documentary evidence to be placed before the Committee and a bifurcation of the name of the employees who are currently working in the Council and those who are not. 23. However, there is nothing on record to the show that any subsequent exercise was undertaken pursuant to the September 1, 2023 meeting or that any reasoned decision was taken subsequently to distinguish between eligible and ineligible DRMs vis-à-vis the benefits. 24. In fact, a bare perusal of the affidavits–in-opposition filed by the present appellants in both the writ petitions shows that there was merely evasive denial in a single paragraph of each of the oppositions regarding the entire allegations made in the writ petitions. Thus, the doctrine of non traverse applies and it is found that the allegations made in the writ petitions were not denied effectively at all. 25. Even the reasons sought to be furnished before this Court are not sufficient to discriminate reasonably between the concerned persons who were given the benefits and those who were not. In fact, the appellants seek to argue that the relevant yardstick was payment of EPF and continuous working of the concerned DRMs. 25. Even the reasons sought to be furnished before this Court are not sufficient to discriminate reasonably between the concerned persons who were given the benefits and those who were not. In fact, the appellants seek to argue that the relevant yardstick was payment of EPF and continuous working of the concerned DRMs. However, such premise is erroneous in law and contrary to the Office Memorandum dated June 7, 1988 as well as the judgement of the Division Bench interpreting the 2017 memorandum. Clause (iv) of the 1988 Office Memorandum, which is the plinth of the case, clearly stipulates that where the nature of work entrusted to the casual workers and regular employees is the same, the casual workers may be paid at the rate of 1/30th pay of the minimum of the relevant pay scale plus dearness allowance for work of eight hours a day. 26. Thus, the thrust was on the “nature of work” to be performed by the DRMs, which was to be the same as regular employees, and not the period for which the casual workers had worked. It may very well be that the casual workers were sporadically employed but the test is whether the nature of work was equivalent to that done by regular employees. 27. In the present case, in fact, the DRMs concerned stand on an even better footing inasmuch as their names have been continuously appearing in the Muster rolls and recognised in the notes referred to above by the PBMC itself, throughout the years. The mere fact that the work was assigned on certain occasions to them does not necessarily mean that they were not in continuous employment. Moreover, continuous employment is not the real test but whether the nature of work was equivalent to that done by the regular employees. The concerned DRMs in the present case have been performing work of similar nature as that of regular employees for the PBMC throughout the year and, as such, there is no reason as to why some of them should be deprived on a patently discriminatory footing whereas others on similar footing were given the same benefit. 28. Thus, we do not find any illegality in the order of the learned Signal Judge. 29. 28. Thus, we do not find any illegality in the order of the learned Signal Judge. 29. However, it is made clear that the said impugned order should be read to be confined to the prayers in the two Writ petitions and the benefit in question regarding payment of 1/30th pay of the minimum of the relevant pay scale plus dearness allowance shall be restricted to the persons who have been categorically referred to in the prayer portion of the writ petitions. 30. Hence, we do not find any reason to interfere in the present appeals. Accordingly, MAT/10/2024 and MAT/11/2024 are dismissed in the light of the above observations. 31. No order as to costs. 32. Urgent certified server copies, if applied for, be issued to the parties upon compliance of due formalities. I agree. - Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee , J.