Smt.Rajeshwari Devi W/O Sri ... vs State Of U.P. Through Secretary ...
2013 Latest Caselaw 1699 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 

?Court No. - 6
 

 
Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 7002 of 2009
 

 
Petitioner :- Smt.Rajeshwari Devi W/O Sri Krishna Prasad Yadav
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Through Secretary Medical,Health & Family
 
Petitioner Counsel :- Nitin Kumar Mishra,N.N. Jaiswal,Prashant Jaiswal,Siddharth Shekhar Singh
 
Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C
 

 
Hon'ble Shabihul Hasnain,J.

Heard Sri N. N. Jaiswal, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing counsel.

It is the case of the petitioner that she was appointed as part  time 'Dai' on 30.4.2003 and she joined her duties at Sub-Centre, Akbara Primary Health Centre, Pura Bazar, District - Faizabad. She was paid honorarium of Rs.50/- only which was converted to Rs.200/- per month. Petitioner has passed Class VIII-Madhyama which is equivalent to Class X  and she also undergone some training in the department. Petitioner has been working since then yet she is not even being paid daily wages what to say of regularization. 

Sri Jaiswal has informed that there are 11 posts of regular 'Dai' available with the opposite parties and the services of the petitioner can be regularized on one of these posts.

Learned Standing counsel has submitted that there is no post of 'Dai' with the department yet he admits that the petitioner was appointed on part-time 'Dai'. There is a contradiction in the counter affidavit and the arguments of the State. Paying Rs.200/- per month can only be explained as 'Begar' which has been prohibited under Article 23 of the Constitution of India, which is quoted as under:-

"23. Prohibition of traffic in human beings and forced labour

(1) Traffic in human beings and begar and other similar forms of forced labour are prohibited and any contravention of this provision shall be an offence punishable in accordance with law.

(2) Nothing in this article shall prevent the State from imposing compulsory service for public purpose, and in imposing such service the State shall not make any discrimination on grounds only of religion, race, caste or class or any of them."

Petitioner has now worked for almost ten years with the opposite parties. She must definitely have become overage by now. The petition is disposed of with a direction to the opposite partis that in case the said 11 posts are to be filled up, the petitioner will also be allowed to participate in the selection in view of the law laid down in the case of Yamuna Shanker Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan and others, (2007) 2 Supreme Court Cases 611 as also in the case of Mukesh Chandra Vs. State of U.P. and others, 2000 (1) A.W.C. 221.

Since the petitioner belongs to backward caste, the relaxation of age will be available to her in that category also. In any view of the matter, she will not be debarred on the basis of age in participating in the selection.

The petition is disposed of finally.

Order Date :- 6.5.2013

RKM.