Santosh Kumar Yadav @ Santosh and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Addl. Chief Secy. Forest Deptt. U.P. Lko. and 2 Others

Heard Mr. Balram Yadav, learned counsel for petitioner(s), learned State Counsel appearing on behalf of opposite parties 1 and 2 and Mr. Amal Rastogi, learned counsel for opposite party no.3.

¶12

Present petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India has been filed seeking a direction to authority concerned for grant of minimum of the pay-scale of a Class IV post of Rs.18,000-28,000/-. A further prayer for a direction to opposite parties to consider petitioners' case for regularization on a Class-IV post has also been sought along with consequential service benefits.

¶13

It has been submitted by learned counsel for petitioner(s) that petitioners have been engaged on daily wage basis with opposite no.3, i.e. Director, Wajid Ali Shah Prani Udyan, Lucknow for the past more than ten years and it is the specific case as indicated in paragraphs 11, 12 and 23 of petition that the nature of duties being performed by them are the same as are being performed by the substantively appointed Class-IV employees of the said zoo. He has therefore placed reliance on judgment rendered by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Sabha Shankar Dube v. Divisional Forest Officer reported in 2019(12) SCC 297: AIR 2019 SC 220.

¶14

Learned counsel for opposite party no.3 has placed reliance on counter affidavit dated 07.11.2025 and submits that petitioners in fact

¶15

WRIA No. 7599 of 2025

¶16

2

¶17

are working on daily wage basis with the organization for the past more than 10 years but are being paid in accordance with the Rules of Government of Uttar Pradesh. It is submitted that the aforesaid aspect does not automatically create eligibility for all wage-earners for grant of minimum of the pay-scale, since the nature and mode of recruitment of substantive appointees is different from that of daily wage employees.

¶18

Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perusal of material on record, it is evident that the answering opposite party no.3 has in paragraph-5 of counter affidavit admitted that petitioner(s) are in service as daily wage employee(s) for the past more than 10 years. The specific case of petitioner(s) indicated in paragraphs 11, 12 and 23 of writ petition that they have been performing the same nature of duties as substantively appointed employees, has not been denied specifically in paragraphs 13, 14 & 25 of counter affidavit.

¶19

Aforesaid issue has already been considered by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Sabha Shankar Dube (supra) in the following manner:-

¶20

"9. The daily-wagers relied upon a judgment of this Court in Putti Lal [State of U.P. v. Putti Lal, (2006) 9 SCC 337 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 1819] and submitted that the same relief may be extended to them. It is relevant to note that the judgment in Putti Lal [State of U.P. v. Putti Lal, (2006) 9 SCC 337 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 1819] 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 regularisation 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 regularisation. The judgment of the High Court that the dailyrated 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 State of U.P. v. Chhiddi [State of U.P. v. Chhiddi, 2015 SCC OnLine All 9087 : (2016) 1 All LJ 226] referred to the judgment in Putti Lal [State of U.P. v. Putti Lal, (2006) 9 SCC 337 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 1819] but placed reliance on a later judgment of this Court in Tilak Raj [State of Haryana v. Tilak Raj, (2003) 6 SCC 123 : 2003 SCC (L&S) 828] . The Division Bench of the High Court also cited Surjit Singh [State of Punjab v. Surjit Singh, (2009) 9 SCC 514 : (2009) 2 SCC (L&S) 696] to hold that the daily-wagers cannot seek the benefit of the judgment of Putti Lal case [State of U.P. v. Putti Lal, (2006) 9 SCC 337 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 1819] 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.

¶21

10. 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 [State of Punjab v. Jagjit

¶22

WRIA No. 7599 of 2025

¶23

3

¶24

Singh, (2017) 1 SCC 148 : (2017) 1 SCC (L&S) 1] held as follows: (SCC p. 223, para 58)

¶25

“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.”

¶26

11. The issue that was considered by this Court in Jagjit Singh [State of Punjab v. Jagjit Singh, (2017) 1 SCC 148 : (2017) 1 SCC (L&S) 1] is whether temporary employees (dailywage 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 [State of Haryana v. Tilak Raj, (2003) 6 SCC 123 : 2003 SCC (L&S) 828] and Surjit Singh [State of Punjab v. Surjit Singh, (2009) 9 SCC 514 : (2009) 2 SCC (L&S) 696] , 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.

¶27

12 [Ed.: Para 12 corrected vide Official Corrigendum No. F.3/Ed.B.J./111/2018 dated 4-72019.] . In view of the judgment in Jagjit Singh [State of Punjab v. Jagjit Singh, (2017) 1 SCC 148 : (2017) 1 SCC (L&S) 1] , 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 scales. We are not called upon to adjudicate on the rights of the appellants relating to the regularisation of their services. We are concerned only with the principle laid down by this Court initially in Putti Lal [State of U.P. v. Putti Lal, (2006) 9 SCC 337 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 1819] relating to persons who are similarly situated to the appellants and later affirmed in Jagjit Singh [State of Punjab v. Jagjit Singh, (2017) 1 SCC 148 : (2017) 1 SCC (L&S) 1] that temporary employees are entitled to minimum of the pay scales as long as they continue in service.

¶28

13. 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.

¶29

14. 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 1-12-2018."

¶30

In view of discussions made herein above, it is evident that the aforesaid judgment is squarely applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case particularly on the twin aspects that the petitioners have rendered more than 10 years of service; and

¶31

WRIA No. 7599 of 2025

¶32

4

¶33

secondly, that they are performing the same nature of duties and functions as are being performed by the substantively appointed employees.

¶34

In view of aforesaid facts and circumstances, a writ in the nature of Mandamus is issued commanding the opposite parties to ensure payment of minimum of the pay-scale of a Class IV post with opposite party no.3 to petitioner(s) forthwith. The aspect of their regularization shall also be considered by authorities concerned within a period of eight weeks from receipt of a certified copy of this order.

¶35

Resultantly, the petition succeeds and is partly allowed to aforesaid extent. Parties to bear their own costs.

¶36

(Manish Mathur,J.)

¶37

November 27, 2025

¶38

kvg/-

¶39

Digitally signed by :- GIREESAN KV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Santosh Kumar Yadav @ Santosh and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Addl. Chief Secy. Forest Deptt. U.P. Lko. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Santosh Kumar Yadav @ Santosh and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Addl. Chief Secy. Forest Deptt. U.P. 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

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Amita Verma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Deptt. of Social Welfare and 2 Others

Savita Devi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Bal Vikas Seva Evam Pushtahar U.P. Lko. and 4 Others

Dilip Saxena and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. General Administration Lko. and 2 Others

Gokaran Prasad Vs State of U.P. and Others

Juber Ahmad Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. / Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Panchayat Raj Lko and 3 Others

Smt. Usha Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Panchayati Raj Deptt. Govt. of U.P. and 3 Others