The High Court disposed of a writ petition filed by a cook challenging his daily wages under the Mid-Day Meal Scheme. The court ordered the respondents to consider the petitioner's representation in accordance with the Supreme Court's judgment in State of Punjab vs. Jagjit Singh regarding equal pay for equal work.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT of CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPS No. 5087 of 2022
Bintu Ram Netam S/o Renga Ram Netam Aged About 42 Years Working As Cook At Govt. Primary School Banskot Block Baderajpur R/o Village Banskot Tahsil And Block Baderajpur District Kondagaon Chhattisgarh.
---- Petitioner
Versus
---- Respondents
| _____________________ For Petitioner |
___________________________________ **:**Mr. N.K. Malviya, Advocate |
|---|---|
| For Union of India | **:**Mr. R.K. Mishra, Dy. S.G. |
| For State |
**:**Mr. Ravi Bhagat, Dy. Govt. Advocate |
S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge Order On Board
08/12/2022
2
as wages and not at the rate fixed by the Collector. Identical issue came up for consideration in WPS No.291/2022 and Coordinate Bench of this Court disposed of the same vide order dated 19.1.2022 directing respondent No.2 therein to consider and decide representation to be submitted by petitioner therein expeditiously within stipulated time. Learned counsel for petitioner herein submits that this writ petition may also be disposed of in terms of aforementioned order dated 19.1.2022.
“1. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is working on the post of Cook in the Government Middle School, Hitapathar and he is being paid only Rs.1200/ per month i.e. Rs.40/ per day, whereas, according to the schedule Annexure P/2, minimum wages prescribed by the Chhattisgarh Minimum Wage, he is entitled for Rs.306.67/- per day. He would rely upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of State of Punjab & Ors. vs. Jagjit Singh & Ors.,decided on 26th October, 2016 in which the Supreme Court has held that the principle of equal pay for equal work will also applicable to all the temporary employees and has been held as under:
“54. There is no room for any doubt, that the principle of 'equal pay for equal work'
3
has emerged from an interpretation of different provisions of the Constitution. The principle has been expounded through a large number of judgements rendered by this Court, and constitutes law declared by this Court. The same is binding on all the courts in India, under Article 141 of the Constitution of India. The parameters of the principle, have been summarized by us in paragraph 42 herein above. The principle of 'equal pay for equal work' has also been extended to temporary employees (differently described as work charge, daily wage, casual ad hoc, contractual, and the like). The legal position, relating to temporary employees, has been summarized by us, in paragraph 44 hereinabove. The above legal position which has been repeatedly declared, is being reiterated by us, yet again”.
4
permitting petitioner to submit representation before respondent Nos.1 & 2 within three weeks from today, for redressal of his/her grievance as projected in this writ petition. On making such representation, respondent No.1 & 2 are directed to consider and decide the same in accordance with law within an outer limit of three months from the date of its receipt, keeping in mind decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of State of Punjab & ors v. Jagjit Singh & ors, reported in (2017) 1 SCC 148.
Sd/Sd/(Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge
Balram
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to wages as per minimum wage schedule under the principle of equal pay for equal work.
Whether the writ petition should be disposed of in terms of the coordinate order passed in WPS No.291/2022.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Johar Lal v. Union of India & orsReferred¶2
WPS No.291/2022
State of Punjab & Ors. vs. Jagjit Singh & Ors.Explained¶2
State of Punjab & Ors. vs. Jagjit Singh & Ors.
State of Punjab & ors v. Jagjit Singh & orsApplied¶5
(2017) 1 SCC 148 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Bintu Ram Netam
Union Of India
State Of Chhattisgarh
The Secretary Department Of Finance
The Director School Education Directorate
District Education Officer, District – Kondagaon
Parth Prateem Sahu
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
