Allahabad High Court
Daya Ram vs State Of U.P. Thru ... on 19 August, 2021
Bench: Rajesh Singh Chauhan
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 7
Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 16674 of 2017
Petitioner :- Daya Ram
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy.Deptt.Of Forest Lucknow & Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Mayankar Singh,Neeraj Kumar Rai,Shailendra Kumar Dubey
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.
Heard Sri Ram Krishna Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondent.
The precised contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner has been discharging his duties as Watcher in Naugarh Range, Samajik Vaniki Van Prabhag on daily wages basis with effect from 01.07.2004 but he has not being paid minimum of the pay scale. He has placed reliance on the dictum of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in re:- Sabha Shanker Dube vs. Divisional Forest Officer & Ors. [reported in 2018 (14) SCALE 765] referring para nos. 9 & 10 which read as under:-
"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. 9| Page
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."
Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the Hon'ble Apex Court in re:- Sabha Shanker Dube (supra) has referred the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in re:- State of Punjab & Others vs. Jagjit Singh & Others [reported in (2017) 1 SCC 148] holding that the daily wagers if have completed more than ten years of service shall be entitled at least for the minimum of pay scale on the basis of principles of equal pay for equal work.
Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of finally at the admission stage directing the respondent no.3 (Prabhagiya Nideshak, Samajik Vaniki Van Prabhag, District Siddarth Nagar) to make the payment of minimum of pay scale to the petitioner forthwith and such payment shall be paid to him regularly.
The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed.
Order Date :- 19.8.2021
Vikas/-
