Allahabad High Court
Swami Nath vs State Of U.P. ... on 23 May, 2018
Bench: Rajesh Singh Chauhan
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 23
Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 15079 of 2018
Petitioner :- Swami Nath
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru.Secy./Prin.Secy.Agri. Edu.& Research & ors
Counsel for Petitioner :- Kripa Shankar Shukla
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Mani K Sinha
Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.
Heard Sri K.S. Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for respondent no. 1 and Sri Rahul Misra holding brief of Sri Manik Sinha for respondents no. 2 and 3.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention of this Court towards the order dated 13.11.2017 passed in Writ Petition No. 27266 (S/S) of 2017: Govind Singh and two others vs. State of U.P. and others submitting that the instant issue is squarely covered with the aforesaid order.
Learned counsel for the respondents no. 2 and 3 has also submitted that the issue in question is squarely covered with the order dated 13.11.2017 as well as orders being passed in Writ Petition No. 24374 (S/S) of 2017: Narendra Kumar Pandey and 7 Ors vs. State of U.P. and others. This court in Writ Petition No. 24374 (S/S) of 2017, passed the following order on 11-10-2017 :-
"Connect with Writ Petition No.1814 (S/S) of 2017 and other connected writ petitions."
Petitioners claim that they are working for the last more than 10 years in the respondent-University but they are being denied even minimum of pay scale admissible to the regular employees.
While entertaining the writ petition, following orders were passed on 25.1.2017:
"Connect with Writ Petition No.23514 (S/S) of 2016.
Notice on behalf of respondent No.1 has been accepted by the office of learned Chief Standing Counsel, whereas Sri Satyanshu Ojha, Advocate has accepted notice on behalf of respondent Nos. 2 and 3.
Respondents may file their counter affidavits within four weeks. Two weeks' time thereafter shall be available to the learned counsel for the petitioners to file rejoinder affidavit.
In the meantime, it is provided that in view of the order dated 04.11.2015, passed by this Court in Writ Petition No 6101 (S/S) of 2015, Ashok Kumar Awasthi Vs. State of U.P. and others, the petitioners shall also be paid the minimum pay scale of Class-IV post on which they are working without allowances attached thereto during pendency of this writ petition.
When the case is next listed, name of Sri Satyanshu Ojha shall be shown in the cause list as counsel for the respondents".
After the matter along with connected bunch of cases were heard and a defence was taken by the respondents that petitioners are project related employees, this Court proceeded to pass the following orders on 2.8.2017 :
"Petitioners in this matter claim that their cases are covered under the Regularization Rules of 2016, inasmuch as the petitioners are continuing for the last several decades, and that their claims have not been examined so far. It is also submitted that petitioners are working continuously, but are being denied minimum of pay scale for the respective work performed by them. Reliance is placed upon the observation made in the State of Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi, reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1, as well as State of Punjab Vs. Jagit Singh, reported in (2017) 1 SCC 148, in order to contend that petitioners are entitled to be paid wages equivalent to the minimum of pay scale for the respective post.
Sri Satyanshu Ojha, learned counsel for the University submits that the engagement of most of these petitioners is related to project sanctioned by other authorities, and the petitioners cannot be granted the relief as has been prayed for.
However, there is nothing on record to show as to under which specific project, petitioners have been engaged, nor other relevant details have been brought on record. The bald averment that petitioners are project related employees, cannot be accepted when prima facie it appears that they have been continuing for the last several decades.
On the request made by Sri Satyanshu Ojha, learned counsel for the respondents, let this matter appear once again in the additional cause list on 8th August, 2017.
It shall be open for the respondents to bring on record relevant materials to substantiate the claim of respondents, failing which this Court would proceed to decide the matter, on merits."
Despite expiry of more than six weeks since passing of the order dated 2.8.2017, till date the respondents have not filed any affidavit in terms of the directions already issued.
The petitioners rely upon the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court made in the case of State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi, (2006) 4 SCC 1 as well as the orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab v. Jagjit Singh (2017) 1 SCC 148.
"Despite opportunity, respondents have not been able to substantiate their plea that petitioners are project related employee, as such, the petitioners are entitled to grant of appropriate interim protection.
Learned counsel for respondents submits that the required affidavit in terms of the order passed by this Court on 2.8.2017 shall positively be filed within four weeks. Let that be done. Rejoinder affidavit may be filed within two weeks thereafter.
List thereafter.
Accordingly, as per observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in para-61 of the case of State of Punjab v. Jagjit Singh (supra), as an interim measure it is provided that the petitioners in the present case 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 performing similar work assigned to the post concerned, however without any allowances."
In view of aforesaid, it is provided that as per observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in para-61 of the case of State of Punjab v. Jagjit Singh (supra), as an interim measure it is provided that the petitioners in the present case 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 performing similar work assigned to the post concerned, however without any allowances.
Learned counsel for parties are permitted to exchange their affidavits.
Order Date :- 23.5.2018
Suresh/
[Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.]
