Ram Bodh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Forest Lko. and 5 Others

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

WRIT - A No. - 6291 of 2025

Ram Bodh

.....Petitioner(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Forest Lko. And 5 Others .....Respondent(s) Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Hanumant Lal Yadav, Shailendra Singh Chauhan Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C.

¶7

Court No. - 18

¶8

HON'BLE KARUNESH SINGH PAWAR, J.

¶9

Heard Mr. Shailendra Singh Chauhan, learned counsel for petitioner and learned State Counsel for opposite parties.

¶10

Petition has been filed challenging order dated 25.03.2025 whereby petitioner's representation for grant of minimum of pay-scale of 7th Pay Commission recommendations and in terms of judgments of Supreme Court as well as this Court has been rejected.

¶11

Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner in fact had been engaged on daily wage basis in the year 1998 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 1998 and has also not completed ten years of service.

¶12

It is submitted that rejection of petitioner's 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 1998 he would be covered by the aforesaid judgment.

¶13

Learned State Counsel, on the basis of counter affidavit, has refuted submissions advanced by learned counsel for petitioner with the submission

¶14

WRIA No. 6291 of 2025

¶15

2

¶16

that on a representation being made by petitioner, an inquiry was conducted by a committee in which opportunity of hearing was also afforded to petitioner but he failed to produce any document indicating engagement in service since 1998. It is submitted that in terms of guidelines dated 24.09.2024, minimum of pay-scale can be granted to daily wage labourers working in the Forest Department for 10-20 years or more but since petitioner has not completed the requisite ten years as daily wage employee, benefit of the said guidelines cannot be provided to him. It is submitted that names of persons indicated in the petition do not have any similarity with that of petitioner.

¶17

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.

¶18

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 1998 has been refuted by opposite parties. The said aspect would indicate disputed question of fact which does not require adjudication in writ jurisdiction.

¶19

Nonetheless in the counter affidavit, opposite parties have admitted that petitioner in fact has been working as daily labourer with the department since 1998 on a purely temporary basis on his own volition. Counteraffidavit 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.

¶20

As such, it is evident that admittedly petitioner is engaged with the department as daily wage employee ever since 1998. 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.

¶21

The aspect has been adjudicated upon by Supreme Court in the case of

¶22

WRIA No. 6291 of 2025

¶23

3

¶24

Sabha Shankar Dube (supra) in the following manner:-

¶25

"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)

¶26

"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."

¶27

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.

¶28

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

¶29

WRIA No. 6291 of 2025

¶30

4

¶31

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."

¶32

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.

¶33

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 1998 and has completed approximately 27 years of service. In view of the said fact, the aforesaid judgments are clearly distinguishable.

¶34

In view of discussion made above, it is evident that impugned order dated 25.03.2025 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.

¶35

Resultantly, petition succeeds and is allowed. Parties to bear their own costs.

¶36

April 22, 2026 Vinay/-

¶37

(Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.)

¶38

Digitally signed by :- VINAY KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Ram Bodh 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?

Ram Bodh 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

Umesh Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Horticulture and Food Processing Lko., and 3 Others

Rajesh Kumar Sonkar (Head Constable PNO-030680672) vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Ram Babu Katiyar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Shukdev Prasad Giri vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Revenue Lko. and 2 Others

Kamruddin Khan vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy., Ayush Anubhag- I, U.P., Lucknow and 2 Others

Seema Mishra vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Irrigation Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others