Appeal by the State against a Writ Court order directing payment of honorarium to Mid Day Meal Workers for all 12 months rather than 10. Holding the denial of vacation pay arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 21, the High Court dismissed the appeal.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.
LPA No. 42 of 2020
Reserved on: 07.05.20247
Date of decision: 14.05.2024
State of H. P. & Anr. …Petitioner
Versus
H. P. Mid Day Meal Workers Union & Anr.
…Respondents
Co ram
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sushil Kukreja, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting? No.
For the Appellant: Mr. Anup Rattan, A.G. with Ms. Sharmila Patial, Addl. A.G. and Mr. Raj Negi, Dy. A.G.
For the Respondents: Mr. Lokender Paul Thakur, Senior Panel Counsel, for respondent No. 2.
Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge
Aggrieved by the judgment passed by the learned Writ Court, whereby it directed the appellants to pay honorarium to the members of respondent No. 1 -Union for the entire calendar year and not to fix the same for 10 months as has been done till date, the State has filed the instant appeal.
“ (i) That a writ in the nature of mandamus may be issued directing respondents to pay remuneration to Midday Meal Workers in the State of H.P. for entire 12 months instead of 10 months as they are being paid at present.
2
(ii) that a writ in the nature of mandamus may be issued directing respondent State to enhance their share in terms of money for the better execution of the scheme in the State of HP on party of the other States of the country who are put more amount apart from the central assistance for the execution of Midday Meal Scheme.
(iii) That a writ in the nature of mandamus may be issued directing respondents not to implement 2010 guidelines upon the Midday Meal workers who are engaged prior to issuance of such guidelines by further directing the respondents to reengage all such workers whose services were terminated after coming into force the guidelines of 2010. Further directions may very kindly be issued to the respondents to reengage the services of all such workers who have worked for substantially a long time in the execution of Midday Meal Scheme.
(iv) That a writ in the nature of mandamus may be issued directing respondents 1 and 2, in the alternative that in case of enhancement in the enrollment in the schools, the same workers who have already worked as Midday Meal workers only they should be reengaged and for such engagement, thereafter, no fresh interviews should be conducted fro such workers who have already put substantial time in the schools.
(v) To produce the entire record pertaining to the case before this Hon’ble Court for its kind perusal”.
3
appropriate legal proceedings qua the same, as such the prayer was allowed by the learned Writ Court.
4
cannot be permitted to say that the act of the appellants is in any way arbitrary or discriminatory.
5
the Government of India for hiring the services of cook cum helper and payment of honorarium.
6
Scheme was launched by the Central Government with certain objectives and under this scheme, hot cooked meal was decided to be served on all school days to the students. The State Government decided to start Hot Cooked Meal Programme in all Government / Govt. Aided Primary Schools of Tribal area of the State in first phase w.e.f. May 2003 and the Govt. vide letter No.EDN-C-B(2)2001-5 (loose) dated 02-08-2004 has started this programme in Non-Tribal area of the State in 2nd phase w.e.f. 01-09-2004 for students studing in 1st to 5th class. Later on, the Govt. vide its letter No. EDN-.F.(4)4/2007, dated 10.06.2008, extended the Cooked Mid Day Meal Scheme programme to the Upper Primary/Middle Units, to cover all the students of classes VI to VIII, of all the Govt./Govt. Aided/High/Senior Secondary Schools of the State w.e.f.01.07.2008. In order to ensure smooth functioning of this scheme, guiding principles were framed by the Government of India for hiring the services of cook cum helper on payment of honorarium.
7
all the Mid Day Meal workers is being made for ten (10) months by the Government of India in the ratio of 90:10 between the Centre and State respectively. The Government of India has fixed/prescribed the payment of Rs.1000/- Honorarium per month per Mid Day Meal worker for ten (10) months across the country. The Government of India is paying Rs.900/- per month only. However, the State Government has increased the Honorarium of Mid Day meal workers from time to time from State resources and at present, the State Government is paying Rs. 2000/- per month (i.e.Rs.900+Rs.1100) per Mid Day meal worker for ten months which is over and above of the fixed rate of Government of India. 11. It is further argued by learned Additional Advocate General that the Mid Day Meal is not a wage earning scheme. The primary objective of the scheme is to provide the nutritious food meal Primary/Upper- to students Primary for universalization of Education by increasing enrolment, retention and attendance. Further, cook cum helper has been engaged for specific hours for preparing and serving of meal in the school and for that honorarium is being paid to them. They are not engaged for full day. The person who is working as cook -cumhelper is free to pursue any other work for his/her livelihood
8
before and after school hours i.e. preparing and serving of food to the students.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the material placed on record.
9
respondent-union is Midday Meal Workers, however, for the purpose of preparing lunch for scores or hundred of children depending on the strength, these Midday Meal Workers in fact commence their work quite early in the morning so that by lunch hours they are in a position to serve hot, clean and healthy food to the children, who are studying in the said school.
State of Rajasthan & Ors (1985) (Supp.) SCC 45.
10
the members of the respondent-union have not worked is clearly unreasonable and arbitrary in view of the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rattan Lal & Ors. vs. State of Haryana & Ors (1985) 4 SCC 43, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court deprecated the practice of the government of denying ad hoc teacher salary and allowances for the period of vacations which was being resorted to by the government by giving fictional breaks to the teachers. The Hon’ble Supreme Court clearly and unequivocally held the ad hoc teachers to be paid the vacations salary as long as they held the office.
11
(Tarlok Singh Chauhan) Judge
(Sushil Kukreja) 14th May, 2024 Judge (sanjeev)
1 issue framed by the court
Whether Mid Day Meal Workers are entitled to honorarium for the full 12 months instead of only 10 months when schools close for vacations.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Dr. (Mrs.) Sushma Sharma and Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan & OrsRelied on¶15
(1985) (Supp.) SCC 45 · Who else cites this
Rattan Lal & Ors. vs. State of Haryana & OrsRelied on¶16
(1985) 4 SCC 43 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 1 enactments
State of H.P. & Anr.
H.P. Mid Day Meal Workers Union & Anr.
Tarlok Singh Chauhan
Sushil Kukreja
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
