Allahabad High Court
Nand Lal Yadav vs State Of U.P. Thru Secy. Forests ... on 23 April, 2019
Bench: Rajesh Singh Chauhan
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 23
Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 11467 of 2019
Petitioner :- Nand Lal Yadav
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru Secy. Forests Lucknow And Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Ninnie Shrivastava,Ajay Singh,Neetu Patel
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.
Heard Ms. N. Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Notices on behalf of opposite parties have been accepted by the office of the learned Chief Standing Counsel.
By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the validity of order dated 12.12.2018 passed by the Chief Conservator of Forest, Van Vardhnik, South Region U.P., Kanpur, whereby the claim of the petitioner for grant of minimum of pay scale for Class-IV post of Mali-Chaukidar was rejected.
The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the issue in respect of making the payment of minimum of pay scale for Class-IV employees has been settled in catena of judgments rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court. The latest judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court is in re: Shabha Shanker Dubey vs. Divisional Forest Officer and others passed in Civil Appeal No.10956 of 2018, in which, the Hon'ble Apex Court vide judgment and order dated 14.11.2018 has held that the employees of Class-IV should be paid a minimum scale of pay. The relevant paras of the aforesaid judgment are paras-9, 10 & 11, which are being reproduced here-in-below:-
"9. On a comprehensive consideration of the entire law on the subject of parity of pay scales on the principle of equal pay for equal work, this Court in Jagjit Singh (supra) held as follows:
"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 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 dependants would suffer 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."
10. The issue that was considered by this Court in Jagjit Singh (supra) is whether temporary employees (daily wage employees, ad hoc appointees, employees appointed on casual basis, contractual employees and likewise) are entitled to the minimum of the regular pay scales on account of their performing the same duties which are discharged by those engaged on regular basis against the sanctioned posts. After considering several judgments including the judgments of this Court in Tilak Raj (supra) and Surjit Singh (supra), this Court held that temporary employees are entitled to draw wages at the minimum of the pay scales which are applicable to the regular employees holding the same post.
11. In view of the judgment in Jagjit Singh (supra), we are unable to uphold the view of the High Court that the Appellants-herein are not entitled to be paid the minimum of the pay sales. We are not called upon to adjudicate on the rights of the Appellants relating to the regularization of their services. We are concerned only with the principle laid down by this Court initially in Putti Lal (supra) relating to persons who are similarly situated to the Appellants and later affirmed in Jagjit Singh (supra) that temporary employees are entitled to minimum of the pay scales as long as they continue in service."
Learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that the present case is squarely covered with the aforesaid dictum of Hon'ble Apex Court.
I also prima-facie find that the present petitioner is entitled to get the benefit of the aforesaid dictum of Hon'ble Apex Court in re: Shabha Shanker Dube (supra).
List this petition on 02.05.2019. The matter shall be taken up at 2:15 p.m. on the said date.
Learned Standing Counsel may seek complete instructions in the matter particularly on the point as to why the petitioner has been denied the benefit of the aforesaid dictum of Hon'ble Apex Court.
Order Date :- 23.4.2019
Suresh/
[Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.]
