Allowed¶47

Brijesh Kumar Pandey v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Forest Lko. and 5 Others

Service Law – Equal pay for equal work – Daily wage employee performing duties of Class IV post

Allahabad HC12 Jan 2026WRIA/13767/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ-A No. 13767 of 2025, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad (Lucknow Bench), Manish Mathur, J., decided 28 January 2026. Daily wage employee in Forest Department performing Class-IV duties since 2015 denied minimum of pay-scale under 7th Pay Commission for want of ten years' service per Government Order dated 24.09.2024. Court applies Sabha Shankar Dube v. Divisional Forest Officer (2019) 12 SCC 297 : AIR 2019 SC 220 and the Jagjit Singh (2017) 1 SCC 148) equal-pay principle; ten-year service condition held to lack rational basis; Pavneesh Giri (Writ-A No. 13593 of 2025) and Awadhesh Chaurasiya (Writ-A No. 13688 of 2025) distinguished on length of service. Disputed question of fact on year of engagement noted as not requiring writ adjudication. Outcome: petition allowed; rejection order dated 20.05.2025 quashed; mandamus to consider minimum of pay-scale as paid to regular Class-IV employees, compliance within six weeks; parties to bear own costs.

What did the court decide?

2. Petition has been filed challenging order dated 20.05.2025 whereby petitioner's application for grant of minimum of pay-scale of Class IV post has been rejected. Further prayer for a direction to opposite party for payment of minimum of pay-scale as per the 7th Pay Commission has also been made.

3. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner in fact had been engaged on daily wage basis in the year 2013 with the department concerned and has continued to discharge work and duties of a Class - IV post ever since to the full satisfaction of opposite parties but has been denied benefits of minimum of pay-scale as admissible to a regular employee of Class-IV post on the ground that he has not been engaged in service since the year 2013 and has also not completed ten years of service.

representation is against dictum of Supreme Court in the case of Sabha Shankar Dube v. Divisional Forest Officer reported in 2019(12) SCC 297: AIR 2019 SC 220. It is submitted that once the opposite parties are admitting even in a worst case that petitioner has been engaged in service since 2015 he would be covered by the aforesaid judgment.

5. Learned State Counsel, on the basis of counter affidavit, has refuted submissions advanced by learned counsel for petitioner with the submission that petitioner was in fact initially engaged as a daily wage employee on a Class IV post in the year 2015 and work only intermittently and not continuously only as and when work was available. It is therefore submitted that since there was no continuous engagement of petitioner on the aforesaid Class IV post, he is dis-entitled to claim the benefit of minimum of pay-scale.

6. Learned State Counsel has placed reliance on judgments rendered by a Co-ordinate Bench in the cases of Pavneesh Giri v. State of U.P. and others, Writ-A No. 13593 of 2025 as well as Awadhesh Chaurasiya and others v. State of U.P. and others, Writ-A No. 13688 of 2025 to submit that placing reliance on Government Order dated 24.09.2024, claim for grant of minimum of pay-scale has been restricted only to those persons who have rendered ten years of service.

7. Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and perusal of material on record, it is evident that claim of petitioner being engaged as daily wage employee in the department concerned ever since 2015 has been refuted by opposite parties. The said aspect would

8. Nonetheless in paragraph-5 of the counter affidavit, opposite parties have admitted that petitioner in fact has been working as daily labourer with the department since 2015 on a purely temporary basis on his own volition. Counter- affidavit does not deny the fact that services rendered by petitioner are the same as are being performed by regular Class- IV employee in the department.

9. As such, it is evident that admittedly petitioner is engaged with the department as daily wage employee ever since 2015. There does not appear to be any dissatisfactory service of petitioner or he is not performing services as are being performed by regular employees of the department on a Class - IV post.

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

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."

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 (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 [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.

12 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

11. Upon applicability of the aforesaid judgment in the present facts and circumstances, it is evident that once an employee has been engaged by the department to perform the same work as is being performed by regular employees no distinction can be made with regard to wages which are being paid to such employees. The aspect of providing such benefit only after rendering ten years of service does not appear to have any rational basis with the object sought to be achieved. Furthermore, there is no stipulation indicated by Supreme Court in the case of Sabha Shanker Dube (supra) which clearly holds that once daily wage employees have been employed in the department performing the same duties and work as regular employees, they are entitled to the same wages.

12. So far as submission of learned State Counsel placing reliance on judgments in the cases of Pavneesh Giri (supra) and Awadhesh Chaurasiya and others (supra) are concerned, it is evident that petitioners of the said petitions had rendered only four years of service in the Forest Department as daily wagers whereas in the present case, it is admitted in the counter affidavit that petitioner has been engaged in service since the year 2015 and has completed approximately eight years of service. In view of the said fact, the aforesaid judgments are clearly distinguishable.

13. In view of discussion made above, it is evident that impugned order dated 20.05.2025 not being in consonance with law enunciated by Supreme Court is hereby quashed by issuance of a Writ in the nature

of Certiorari. Further Writ in the nature of Mandamus is issued commanding the opposite parties to consider payment of minimum of pay-scale to petitioner as is being paid to regular Class-IV employees as revised from time to time. Compliance of this order shall be ensured within a period of six weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is served upon the authority concerned.

Brijesh Kumar Pandey v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Forest Lko. and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Brijesh Kumar Pandey v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Forest Lko. and 5 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

Sharad Kumar Gupta vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Forest Deptt. Lko. and 4 Others

Jai Dutt Bhatt Thru. His Next Friend/Father/Guardian Bhawani Dutt Bhatt vs U.O.I. Thru. Ministry of Defense New Delhi and Another

Om Prakash Tiwari vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Irrigation Deptt. Lko. and 2 Others

Gourav Choudhary (S.I. , PNO-192510716) vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and 3 Others

Vikas Kumar Jaiswal vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and Another

Smt. Monika Bharti and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko. and Another