Braj Kishor and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Horticulture Lko. and 2 Others

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:20719

Court No. - 18

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 3963 of 2025

Petitioner :- Braj Kishor And 2 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Horticulture Lko. And 2 Others

¶5

Counsel for Petitioner :- Mohd. Ateeq Khan Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶6

Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel for State-respondent Nos.1 to 3.

¶8

By this petition, the petitioners have prayed for the following relief:-

¶9

"i. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the opposite parties to make payment of minimum of pay scale to the petitioners like other similarly situated daily wagers working in the department.

¶10

ii. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the opposite party no.2 to decide the representation dated 24.03.2025 contained as Annexure no.5 to this petition."

¶11

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioner No.1 was appointed as daily wager in the year 2008, petitioner No.2 was appointed as daily wager in the year 2014 and petitioner No.3 was appointed as daily wager in the yer 2005 under the respondent No.3. Since the date of appointment till date all the petitioners are performing their duties in the department continuously as full time daily wager and are getting only Rs.5,980/- per month whereas the similarly situated daily wagers appointed after the appointment of the petitioners are getting Rs.18,000/- per month and petitioners have been discriminated in spite of the judgment passed by Hon'ble

¶12

Supreme Court in the case of Sabha Shanker Dube vs. Divisional Forest Officer and others : Civil Appeal No.10956 of 2018 .

¶13

Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel on the basis of written instructions has submitted that the department has no objection so far as contention of the petitioner No.1 is concerned. So far as the contention of petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are concerned, the averments made in the writ petition are false and contrary to record.

¶14

She has further drawn attention of the court towards the written instructions which contains chart for each of the petitioners showing their working in every year since 2008-09 till date. It is submitted on behalf of the State that the perusal of the chart in respect of the petitioner Nos.2 and 3 shows that petitioner No.2 has worked for 106 days in the year 2020-21, 31 days in the year 2021-22 and 7 days in the year 2022-23 in the month of July. Likewise, 2023-24, 2024-25 he has not worked continuously and for each month there is gap of several months in between. Likewise, petitioner No.3 has also not worked at all till 2018-19 except for ten days in the year 2017-18 that too in the month of November. Further, from 2019-20 till 2024-25, the petitioner No.3 has worked with breaks of few months. The Supreme Court in the case of Sabha Shanker Dubey (supra) has laid down the law for payment of minimum pay scale to the employees who have been engaged on daily wage basis/ad hoc appointees, employees appointed on casual basis contractual employees and likewise while following the earlier verdict of the Supreme Court in State of Punjab & ors. vs. Jagjit Singh & ors. reported in [(2017) 1 SCC 148] , the relevant paragraph Nos.9 to 13 are extracted below:-

¶15

“ 9. On a comprehensive consideration of the entire law on the subject of parity of pay scales on the principle of equal pay for

¶16

equal work, this Court in Jagjit Singh (supra) held as follows: “ 58. In our considered view, it is fallacious to determine artificial 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.”

¶17

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.

¶18

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.

¶19

12. We express no opinion on the contention of the State Government that the Appellants are not entitled to the reliefs as

¶20

they are not working on Group ‘D’ posts and that some of them worked for short periods in projects.

¶21

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

¶22

By this petition, the petitioners have confined their prayer for payment of minimum pay scale and have also prayed that decision may be taken on their representation. The term temporary employee has been considered by the Supreme Court in earlier case of Jagjit Singh (supra).

¶23

Accordingly, considering the arguments advanced by the parties, the petition is disposed of finally with a direction to the petitioners to submit a fresh representation to the respondent No.2 i.e. Director, Horticulture & Food Processing who will decide the same and shall pass a reasoned order strictly in view of the judgment of Sobha Shanker Dubey (supra) in case the same is applicable for each of the petitioners. The Representation shall be given within two weeks' from today. If the petitioners submit a fresh representation, the respondent No.2 shall decide the same within four weeks' thereafter, by passing a speaking and reasoned order.

¶24

Order Date :- 11.4.2025 Saurabh Yadav/-

¶25

Digitally signed by :- SAURABH YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Braj Kishor and 2 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Horticulture Lko. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Braj Kishor and 2 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Vikas Tiwari Vs State of U.P. Thru. Special Secretary, Personnel,and 3 Others

Aakanksha Vs State of U.P. Thru. Special Secy. Revenue Deptt. Lko. and Another

Arun Kumar Singh and Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Medical Health and Family Welfare Lko. and Another

Ram Sajivn Yadav Alias Ram Sajeevan Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 4 Others

Shyam Baboo Verma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. of Food, Lko. and 2 Others

Sarvesh Kumar Singh and 101 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Medical Health and Family Welfare Lko. and Another