Allowed

Satish Narsing Gaikwad v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC10 Mar 2021WP/4481/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court disposed of multiple consolidated writ petitions filed by contractual drivers seeking regularization and equal pay. Relying on the precedent of Jabalpur Bench and the Supreme Court judgment in State of Punjab v. Jagjit Singh regarding equal pay for equal work, the court allowed the plea for equal wages but dismissed the claim for regularization.

What did the court decide?

Directed to pay petitioners wages at the minimum of the regular pay scale with effect from the date of petition, to be complied with within six months. Regularization refused; grievance kept open befo

Satish Narsing Gaikwad Vs the State of Maharashtra and… — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2021)

¶1

(1)

¶2

WP-4495-2021

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.4495 OF 2021

¶4

GAJENDRA BANSILAL GIRASE AND OTHERS

¶5

VERSUS

¶6

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR ITS SECRETARY AND
OTHERS

¶7

AND

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO.4473 OF 2021

¶9

RAHUL BRIJLAL KOLI

¶10

VERSUS

¶11

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

¶12

AND

¶13

WRIT PETITION NO.4478 OF 2021

¶14

BHAGWANT DAGA WAGH

¶15

VERSUS

¶16

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

¶17

AND

¶18

WRIT PETITION NO.4479 OF 2021

¶19

SURESH SHRIPATI LAKAL

¶20

VERSUS

¶21

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR ITS SECRETARY AND

¶22

OTHERS

¶23

AND

¶24

WRIT PETITION NO.4480 OF 2021

¶25

RAJESH DHONDIRAM KAMBLE

¶26

VERSUS

¶27

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR ITS SECRETARY AND
OTHERS

¶28

AND

¶29

WRIT PETITION NO.4481 OF 2021

¶30

SATISH NARSING GAIKWAD

¶31

VERSUS

¶32

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

¶33

AND

¶34

WRIT PETITION NO.4482 OF 2021

¶35

(2)

¶36

WP-4495-2021

¶37

SAYYED AKHEEL SAYYAD TALEED
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

¶38

AND

¶39

WRIT PETITION NO.4483 OF 2021

¶40

PADMAKAR KONDIBA RAHIRE AND OTHERS

¶41

VERSUS

¶42

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR ITS SECRETARY AND
OTHERS

¶43

AND

¶44

WRIT PETITION NO.4484 OF 2021

¶45

SHIVSHANKAR MOTIRAM WAIPANKAR AND ANOTHER

¶46

VERSUS

¶47

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

¶48

AND

¶49

WRIT PETITION NO.4486 OF 2021

¶50

MANOJ KAILASH GAVIT AND OTHERS

¶51

VERSUS

¶52

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

¶53

AND

¶54

WRIT PETITION NO.4487 OF 2021

¶55

SANTOSH PRAKASH MORE

¶56

VERSUS

¶57

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

¶58

AND

¶59

WRIT PETITION NO.4488 OF 2021

¶60

LAXMAN RAOSAHEB KADAM

¶61

VERSUS

¶62

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

¶63

AND

¶64

WRIT PETITION NO.4489 OF 2021

¶65

NARESH PRAKASHRAO DESHMUKH AND ANOTHER

¶66

VERSUS

¶67

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR ITS SECRETARY AND
OHTERS

¶68

(3)

¶69

WP-4495-2021

¶70

AND

¶71

WRIT PETITION NO.4490 OF 2021

¶72

SHIVGIR VITTHAL GIRI AND OTHERS
VERSUS

¶73

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

¶74

AND

¶75

WRIT PETITION NO.4491 OF 2021

¶76

AKASH PIRAJI KAMBLE
VERSUS

¶77

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

¶78

AND

¶79

WRIT PETITION NO.4492 OF 2021

¶80

GAJANAN RAGHUNATH BARI

¶81

VERSUS

¶82

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR ITS SECRETARY AND
OTHERS

¶83

AND

¶84

WRIT PETITION NO.4493 OF 2021

¶85

TUKARAM RAMRAO PARSE

¶86

VERSUS

¶87

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR ITS SECRETARY AND
OTHERS

¶88

AND

¶89

WRIT PETITION NO.4494 OF 2021

¶90

ARUN UDDHAV MADKE AND OTHERS

¶91

VERSUS

¶92

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR ITS SECRETARY AND
OTHERS

¶93

AND

¶94

WRIT PETITION NO.4496 OF 2021

¶95

BHARAT ANANDA PATIL AND OTHERS

¶96

VERSUS

¶97

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR ITS SECRETARY AND
OTHERS

¶98

(4)

¶99

WP-4495-2021

¶100

AND

¶101

WRIT PETITION NO.4497 OF 2021

¶102

SANTOSH HARIDAS SOLANKE AND OTHERS
VERSUS

¶103

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

¶104

AND

¶105

WRIT PETITION NO.4498 OF 2021

¶106

SANJAY SHIVRAM GHULE AND ANOTHER

¶107

VERSUS

¶108

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR ITS SECRETARY AND
OTHERS

¶109

AND

¶110

WRIT PETITION NO.4499 OF 2021

¶111

GANESH PANDIT BETKAR AND OTHERS

¶112

VERSUS

¶113

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

¶114

AND

¶115

WRIT PETITION NO.4500 OF 2021

¶116

GOVIND BHARAT SHINDE AND OTHERS

¶117

VERSUS

¶118

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

¶119

AND

¶120

WRIT PETITION NO.4501 OF 2021

¶121

DNYANESHWAR ASARAM DHURVDE

¶122

VERSUS

¶123

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

¶124

AND

¶125

WRIT PETITION NO.4084 OF 2021

¶126

RAJARAM SOPAN PACHPANDE

¶127

VERSUS

¶128

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

¶129

Mr. Pramod A. Kulkarni, Advocate for the
Petitioners.

¶130

Mr. S. K. Tambe and Mrs. P. V. Diggikar, AGP for

¶131

(5)

¶132

WP-4495-2021

¶133

Respondents-State in respective Writ Petitions.
Mr. M. S. Sonawane, Advocate for Respondent Nos.4
and 5 in WP/4084/2021.

¶134

… CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA & SHRIKANT D. KULKARNI, JJ.

¶135

 DATED : 10th MARCH, 2021.

¶136

PER COURT:-

¶137

1.Learned counsel for the petitioners seeks
leave to amend and claim relief on the basis of
equal pay for equal work. Leave granted.

¶138

2.The petitioners in these petitions seek
relief of regularization and equal wages for equal
work.

¶139

3.As far as the relief of regularization is
concerned, reliance is placed on the order passed
by this Court at Principal Seat in Writ Petition
No.10260/2019 dated 03.09.2019. The Division Bench
at the principal seat, in the said matter, passed
following order:

¶140

"In the light of the fact that the concerned
persons are looking into the grievance of
the petitioners, met and made appropriate
recommendations and no final decision is
taken as yet, this writ petition can be
disposed and is accordingly disposed of by
keeping open all the contentions and to be
raised in the event the grievances of the
petitioners still survive."

¶141

4.As far as grievance of the petitioners of
equal pay for equal work is concerned, the
petitioners placed reliance on the order dated

¶142

(6) WP-4495-2021

¶143

08.12.2020 passed by the Division Bench at
Principal Seat in Writ Petition St. No. 92250/2020
with connected writ petitions and the judgment and
order of this Court at Nagpur Bench in Writ
Petition No. 2247/2014, dated 20th November, 2019.
The Division Bench at the Principal Seat, relying
upon the judgment of Division Bench of Nagpur
Bench, passed the following order on 08.12.2020 in
Writ Petition St. No. 92250/2020 with connected
writ petitions.

¶144

"5. This Court, in the judgment relied on behalf of
the petitioners, in the matter of Dhiraj S.
Wankhede (supra) has held:

¶145

"9. The other relief claimed by the
petitioners is about pay parity with the
regular drivers in Class-III category. In
this regard the law has been settled by the
Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of
Punjab and others...Versus...Jagjit Singh and
others , reported in (2017 )1 SCC 148. 10.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that no
artificial parameters can be devised to deny
the fruits of labour when an employee
performs the same work as another employee.
The Hon’ble Apex Court has further held that
no artificial distinction can be made between
such two employees, whereby one is given
higher salary and another is paid lower
salary. Relevant observations of the Hon’ble
Apex Court appearing in paragraph no.58 of
the judgment are reproduced as below :-

¶146

“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

¶147

(7)

¶148

WP-4495-2021

¶149

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 dependents would surfer
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.”

¶150

11. It is clear that the Hon’ble Supreme
Court has held that when one employee
discharges/performs same work as another
employee, there cannot be any distinction
between the two employees so far as the
application of the pay scale to both of them
is concerned. The Hon’ble Apex Court has
further held that all the temporary employees
who are performing

¶151

similar work as the regular employees would
be entitled to draw wages at the minimum of
the pay scale (at the lowest grade, in the
regular pay scale) extended to regular
employees holding the same post. This relief
would also have to be granted to all the
petitioners as there is no dispute that their
work is similar to the work of the regular
drivers.”

¶152

6. The fact that the petitioners in above
referred judgment were contractual employees
is not disputed. We are, therefore, of the
opinion that the issue involved in all these
petitions is covered by view taken by this
Court in its judgment dated 20.11.2019 in
above referred writ petition. Accordingly,
the following order is passed.

¶153

a. The petitioners be paid wages at the

¶154

(8) WP-4495-2021

¶155

minimum of the pay scale at the lowest grade,
in the regular pay scale extended to the
regular employees holding the same post with
effect from the date of the petition.

¶156

b. The respondent No.5 is directed to comply
with this order within six months from today.

¶157

c. No order as to costs."

¶158

5.In view of the consistent view taken at
the Principal Seat and at Nagpur Bench, we follow
the same course and pass following order:

¶159

O R D E R

¶160

(a) The petitioners be paid wages at the minimum of the pay scale at the lowest grade, in the regular pay scale extended to the regular employees holding the same post with effect from the date of the petition.

¶161

(b) The respondent No.5 is directed to comply with this order within six months from today.

¶162

6.With the aforesaid observation and
directions, writ petitions are disposed of. No
costs.

¶163

(SHRIKANT D. KULKARNI) (S. V. GANGAPURWALA) JUDGE JUDGE

¶164

Devendra/March-2021

Satish Narsing Gaikwad v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satish Narsing Gaikwad v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sahebrao Eknath Karlekar Vs the State of Maharashtra Thr Its Secretary and Another

Jayshree Eknath Karlekar Vs the State of Maharashtra Thr Secretary to Tribal Development and Another

Prachi Sainath Sahu Thr Father and Natural Guardia Sainath Narayan Shahu Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Samata Shikshan Sanstha Pune Thr the Secreatry Vilas Ananda Wagh Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Akash Piraji Kamble Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Santosh Haridas Solanke and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others