Satendra and 3 Others vs Bhanu Prakash Ram, Dir. Horticulture and Food Processing Lko. — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Satendra and 3 Others vs Bhanu Prakash Ram, Dir. Horticulture and Food Processing Lko. — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Two weeks' time granted for filing a further compliance affidavit, failing which the opposite party shall appear in person for framing of charges; matter listed in the week commencing 12.01.2026. No substantive determination reached on the contempt allegation or the wage-coverage issue.

Issue for consideration

Whether the compliance affidavit filed by the opposite party constitutes willful and intentional disobedience of the judgment and order passed in the writ petition. +1 more

Court's answer

Office directed to trace the objection filed in the Registry against the compliance affidavit and place it on record.

Ratio / Principle

Two weeks' time granted to learned State Counsel for filing a further compliance affidavit, failing which the opposite party shall appear in person for the purposes of framing of charges.

Key takeaways

Matter directed to be listed in the week commencing 12.01.2026.obiter¶21

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench), Court No. 8 (Manish Kumar, J.), December 10, 2025 - Contempt Application (CIVIL) No. 2915 of 2025, Satendra and 3 Others v. Bhanu Prakash Ram, Director, Horticulture and Food Processing, Lucknow. Learned State Counsel reported that a compliance affidavit had been filed on 06.11.2025 by the opposite party, enclosing an order dated 04.10.2025 rejecting the applicant's (a casual employee's) claim for minimum wages on the ground that the claim was not covered by the Supreme Court judgment in Sabha Shankar Dube v. Divisional Forest Officer and others (AIR 2019 SC 220, Civil Appeal No. 10957-10963 of 2018), the applicant being a casual employee and not a temporary employee like Sabha Shankar Dube. Applicant counsel stated that the objection to the compliance affidavit lay untraced in the Registry, and maintained that the applicants' case was squarely covered by paragraph-10 of the Sabha Shankar Dube judgment, wherein temporary employees - daily wage employees, ad hoc appointees, employees appointed on casual basis, contractual employees and likewise - are held entitled to the minimum of the regular pay scales (with reference to Jagjit Singh, AIR 2016 SC 5176; Tilak Raj, AIR 2003 SC 2658; Surjit Singh, 2009 AIR SCW 6759), and alleged that the compliance affidavit was willful and intentional disobedience of the judgment and order passed in the writ petition. No substantive determination was reached on either point: the Office was directed to trace the objection and place it on record; two weeks were granted for filing a further compliance affidavit, failing which the opposite party shall appear in person for framing of charges; and the matter was listed for the week commencing 12.01.2026.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 2915 of 2025

Satendra And 3 Others

.....Applicant(s)

Versus

Bhanu Prakash Ram, Dir. Horticulture And Food Processing Lko.

.....Opposite Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s)	: Mohd. Ateeq Khan, Bhanupriya Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	:

Court No. - 8

HON'BLE MANISH KUMAR, J.

Learned State Counsel has submitted that a compliance affidavit has been filed on 06.11.2025 by the opposite party enclosing therein the copy of the order dated 04.10.2025 deciding and rejecting the claim of the applicant (a casual employee) for minimum wages as his claim is not covered by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sabha Shankar Dube versus Divisional Forest Officer and others AIR 2019 Supreme Court 220, passed in Civil Appeal No. 10957-10963 of 2018, as the applicant is a casual employee not a temporary employee like Sabha Shankar Dube.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that against the compliance affidavit, the objection has already been filed in the Registry, but the same is not on record.

Office is directed to trace the same and place it on record.

Learned counsel for the applicants further submitted that the case of the applicants is squarely covered by the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sabha Shankar Dube (supra) for the reason that in paragraph-10 of the said judgment temporary employee (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. For convenience, paragraph-10 of the said judgment is quoted hereinbelow:-

" The issue that was considered by this court in Jagjit Singh (AIR 2016 SC 5176) (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 (AIR 2003 SC 2658) (supra) and Surjit Singh (2009 AIR SCW 6759 (Supra),

CAPL No. 2915 of 2025

2

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."

He further submits that compliance affidavit filed by the opposite party is nothing but a willful and intentional disobedience of the judgment and order passed in the writ petition.

At this stage, learned State Counsel prays for and is granted two weeks' time for filing further compliance affidavit failing which, the opposite party shall appear in person for the purposes of framing of charges.

List this case in the week commencing 12.01.2026

December 10, 2025 Muk

(Manish Kumar,J.)

Digitally signed by :- MOHD UMAR KHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench