Ramakant Rawat and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Horticulture Lko. and 2 Others

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:32419

Court No. - 6

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 1401 of 2022 Petitioner :- Ramakant Rawat And 4 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Horticulture Lko. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Mohd. Ateeq Khan Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Abdul Moin,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel appearing for all the respondents.

¶6

With the consent of learned counsel appearing for the contesting parties, the writ petition is being finally decided.

¶7

The instant writ petition has been filed praying for following main reliefs:

¶8

"i. to Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 14.02.2022 passed by opposite party No.3 as contained as Annexure no.1 to this writ petition.

¶9

ii. to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the opposite parties to pay minimum of pay scale to the petitioner according to the recommendation of seventh pay commission.

¶10

iii. to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the opposite parties to make payment of arrears of salary to the petitioners from the date of their engagement."

¶11

The case set for the by the petitioners is that the petitioner no. 1 was initially appointed on daily wages under respondent no. 3 on 01.02.2017 while the petitioners no. 2 to 4 were appointed on daily wages under respondent no. 3 in the year 2019 while the petitioner no. 5 was appointed in 2020. Since their appointments, the petitioners are working on daily wages in the department.

¶12

It is contended that a person similarly circumstanced has been granted minimum pay-scale vide order dated 28.01.2017, a copy of which is Annexure 9 to this petition, and another person similarly circumstanced has been granted minimum pay-scale vide order dated 23.08.2019 and as the petitioners were not paid minimum pay-scale, they were constrained to approach this Court by filing Writ Petition No. of 25807 of 2021 (S/S) in re: Ramakant Rawat And 4 Others

¶13

Vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Horticulture Lko. And Others. The writ Court, vide order dated 03.12.2021, a copy of which is Annexure 16 to this petition, required the respondent no. 3 to decide the representation of the petitioners regarding the claim.

¶14

In pursuance thereof, the grant of minimum pay-scale has been rejected vide impugned order dated 14.02.2022 primarily on the ground that the petitioners are working as daily labour and are not working against the regularly sanctioned post consequently are not entitled to be given the minimum pay-scale.

¶15

Being aggrieved, the instant petition has been filed.

¶16

Learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on the judgment of Apex Court passed in the case of Sabha Shanker Dube Vs. Divisional Forest Office and Others reported in (2019) 12 SCC 297 to contend that the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that the daily wagers/temporary employees would be entitled for grant of minimum pay-scale at par with the regularly appointed persons.

¶17

He further contends that in the counter affidavit at one place, the respondents have described the petitioners to be daily labour and are regularly working since right from their appointment consequently the law laid down by the the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sabha Shanker Dube (supra) would be applicable in the case of the petitioners and hence the petitioners would be entitled for grant of minimum pay-scale.

¶18

On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel for State, on the basis of averments made in the counter affidavit, argues that the petitioners are working as daily labour and the minimum pay of ₹ 201/- per day not exceeding ₹ 5226 /- per month is being paid to them. However, learned Standing Counsel does not dispute the principle of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sabha Shanker Dube (supra) .

¶19

Having heard the learned counsel for contesting parties and having perused the records what emerges is that the petitioners are working

¶20

under the respondents on daily wage basis since the year 2017 so far as it pertains to the petitioner no. 1 and since the year 2019 so far as it pertains to the petitioner nos. 2 to 4 and since the year 2020 so far as it pertains to the petitioner no. 5. Admittedly they are being paid only ₹ 201/- per day. The claim of the petitioners for grant of minimum payscale has been rejected vide order impugned dated 14.02.2022 primarily on the ground that the petitioners are working as daily labour and are not discharging their duties against any particular post rather they are doing the work that is required to be done by them which, in fact, is of non-technical nature.

¶21

The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sabha Shanker Dube (supra) has held as under:

¶22

"8. The daily wagers relied upon a judgment of this Court in Putti Lal (supra) and submitted that the same relief may be extended to them. It is relevant to note that the judgment in Putti Lal (supra) relates to a dispute similar to that involved in this case. Daily rated wage earners in the Forest Department in the State of Uttar Pradesh approached the High Court for regularization of their services. The Division Bench of the High Court of Allahabad directed the State Government to constitute the Committee as directed in order to frame the scheme for regularization. The judgment of the High Court that the daily rated wage workers shall be paid at the minimum of the pay scales was affirmed by this Court on the principle of equal pay for equal work. The Division Bench of the High Court while deciding Special Appeal No.1530 of 2007 referred to the judgment in Putti Lal (supra) but placed reliance on a later judgment of this Court Tilak Raj (supra). The Division Bench of the High Court also cited the case of Surjit Singh (supra) to hold that the daily wagers cannot seek the benefit of the judgment of Putti Lal (supra) case in view of the subsequent decisions of this Court wherein, according to the High Court, it was held that daily wage employees were not entitled to the minimum of the pay scales. 9. On a comprehensive consideration of the entire law on the subject of parity of pay scales on the principle of equal pay for equal work, this Court in Jagjit Singh (supra) held as follows:

¶23

" 58. In our considered view, it is fallacious to determine artificial

¶24

parameters to deny fruits of labour. An employee engaged for the same work cannot be paid less than another who performs the same duties and responsibilities. Certainly not, in a welfare State. Such an action besides being demeaning, strikes at the very foundation of human dignity. Anyone, who is compelled to work at a lesser wage does not do so voluntarily. He does so to provide food and shelter to his family, at the cost of his self- respect and dignity, at the cost of his self-worth, and at the cost of his integrity. For he knows that his dependants would suffer immensely, if he does not accept the lesser wage. Any act of paying less wages as compared to others similarly situate constitutes an act of exploitative enslavement, emerging out of a domineering position. Undoubtedly, the action is oppressive, suppressive and coercive, as it compels involuntary subjugation." 10. The issue that was considered by this Court in Jagjit Singh (supra) is whether temporary employees (daily wage employees, ad hoc appointees, employees appointed on casual basis, contractual employees and likewise) are entitled to the minimum of the regular pay scales on account of their performing the same duties which are discharged by those engaged on regular basis against the sanctioned posts. After considering several judgments including the judgments of this Court in Tilak Raj (supra) and Surjit Singh (supra), this Court held that temporary employees are entitled to draw wages at the minimum of the pay scales which are applicable to the regular employees holding the same post. 11. In view of the judgment in Jagjit Singh (supra), we are unable to uphold the view of the High Court that the Appellants-herein are not entitled to be paid the minimum of the pay sales. We are not called upon to adjudicate on the rights of the Appellants relating to the regularization of their services. We are concerned only with the principle laid down by this Court initially in Putti Lal (supra) relating to persons who are similarly situated to the Appellants and later affirmed in Jagjit Singh (supra) that temporary employees are entitled to minimum of the pay scales as long as they continue in service. 12. We express no opinion on the contention of the State Government that the Appellants are not entitled to the reliefs as they are not working on Group 'D' posts and that some of them worked for short periods in projects.

¶25

13. For the aforementioned reasons, we allow these Appeals and set

¶26

aside the judgments of the High Court holding that the Appellants are entitled to be paid the minimum of the pay scales applicable to regular employees working on the same posts. The State of Uttar Pradesh is directed to make payment of the minimum of pay scales to the Appellants with effect from 1 st December, 2018."

¶27

From perusal of judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sabha Shanker Dube (supra) it emerges that the Hon'ble Apex Court after placing reliance on its earlier judgments passed in the case of State of U.P. Vs. Putti Lal reported in (2006) 9 SCC 337 and State of Punjab Vs. Jagjit Singh reported in (2017) 1 SCC 148 has categorically held that temporary employees are entitled to minimum of the pay scales as long as they continue in service. When the facts of the instant case are tested on the touchstone of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sabha Shanker Dube (supra) it clearly emerges that the respondents have, in fact, described the petitioners to be working as daily labour and are admittedly only paying a sum of ₹ 201/- per day but there is no dispute that the petitioners are working on daily wages and consequently the principle of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sabha Shanker Dube (supra) would be attracted.

¶28

Keeping in view the aforesaid discussion, the writ petition is allowed.

¶29

The order impugned dated 14.02.2022, a copy of which is Annexure No. 1 to the petition, is hereby quashed. The matter is remitted back to the respondent no. 2/Director, Horticulture & Food Processing, Uttar Pradesh, 2 Sapru Marg, Lucknow to pass afresh order in accordance with law keeping in view the observations made above for grant of minimum pay-scale to the petitioners.

¶30

Let such order be passed within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

¶31

Order Date :- 25.4.2024/Mohit Singh/-

¶32

Digitally signed by :- MOHIT SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Ramakant Rawat and 4 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Horticulture Lko. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramakant Rawat and 4 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Horticulture Lko. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Amit Kumar Gupta Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Horticulture Lko. and Others

Sub Inspector (Civil Police) Amol Kumar Sharma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 2 Others

Smt. Sashibala Vs State of U.P. Thru. Chief Secy. of Directorate of Geology and Mining, Lko. and Another

Saket Girls Pg College, Dahilamau, Pratapgarh Thru. Manager Kusum Lata Srivastava and Anr. vs Commissioner for Employees Compensation / Assistant Labour Commissioner, Pratapgarh and Another

Jainendra Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy./Prin. Secy. Basic Education Lko. and Others

Prem Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Horticulture Lko. and Others