Allahabad High Court
State Of U.P. Through Its ... vs Ram Bhuwal And 9 Others on 12 July, 2021
Bench: Munishwar Nath Bhandari, Acting Chief Justice, Piyush Agrawal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Court No. - 29
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 1135 of 2020
Appellant :- State Of U.P. Through Its Principal Secretary (Forest Department) And 3 Others
Respondent :- Ram Bhuwal And 9 Others
Counsel for Appellant :- Anand Kumar Ray
Counsel for Respondent :- Ramesh Chandra Dwivedi
With
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 432 of 2021
Appellant :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Respondent :- Jai Prakash Mishra And 2 Others
Counsel for Appellant :- Anand Kumar Ray
Counsel for Respondent :- Ram Sagar Yadav
With
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 438 of 2021
Appellant :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Respondent :- Shobh Nath
Counsel for Appellant :- Anand Kumar Ray
Counsel for Respondent :- Ram Sagar Yadav
Hon'ble Munishwar Nath Bhandari,Acting Chief Justice
Hon'ble Piyush Agrawal,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. Since the appeals have been decided on merit, thus, delay in filing the same is condoned as otherwise the application is not being opposed by the learned counsel for the non-appellants.
3. By these appeals a challenge made to the judgements dated 28.1.2020 and 20.1.2021 whereby the writ petitions preferred by the petitioners were allowed.
4. The petitioners preferred writ petition to challenge the order dated 5.1.2016 whereby the orders dated 22.9.2015 and 24.9.2015 to grant benefit at the minimum of pay scale to the petitioners / non-appellants was withdrawn. It is a case where the petitioners were engaged by the forest department from time to time. They are in service for substantial period but were not paid at the minimum of pay scale.
5. The appellant - department took a decisions on 22.9.2015 and 24.9.2015 to allow the wages at the minimum of pay scale. The orders aforesaid were not complied thus Writ A No. 68547 of 2015 was preferred. During pendency of the said writ petition, the Forest Department gave an assurance to allow the wages at the minimum of pay scale to the petitioners- non appellants and for that order has already been passed. The writ petition was accordingly dismissed on the assurance. The department thereupon passed the impugned order dated 5.1.2016 cancelling the earlier orders dated 22.9.2015 and 24.9.2015 for grant of wages at the minimum of the pay scale. Learned Single Judge has set aside the order dated 5.1.2016 finding entitlement at the minimum of pay scale accepted by the Supreme Court in the case of Sabha Shanker Dube Vs. Divisional Forest Officer and others in Civil Appeal No. 10556 of 2018 by judgement dated 14.11.2018. In the light of the judgment of Sabha Shankar Dube (supra) so as the judgement of Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab and others Vs. Jagjit Singh and others (2017) 1 SCC 148, the petitioners were held entitled to get wages at the minimum of pay scale. The appeals have been preferred by the State to challenge the judgements of learned Single Judge.
6. We find no ground to cause interference in the judgements of learned Single Judge as it is covered by the judgements of Apex Court in the cases supra. The Chief Standing Counsel though argued the appeal but failed to give any reason to cause interference in the judgement. Thus the appeal can be dismissed but before that we need to comment on the conduct of the appellant- department.
7. In the earlier writ petition i.e. Writ A No. 68547 of 2015, the appellant-department gave an assurance for grant of wages at the minimum of pay scale to the petitioners / non-appellants. On their assurance, the earlier writ petition was dismissed but immediately thereupon an order was passed denying the benefit at the minimum of pay scale. This was nothing but an effort to play hide & seek with the Court. Till the earlier writ petition was pending, the officers had shown their willingness to extend the benefit of wages at the minimum of pay scale but immediately after dismissal of the writ petition on their assurance, they withdrew earlier orders to extend benefit at the minimum of pay scale. Such an act of the officer needs to be deprecated which otherwise has given rise to this litigation.
8. Apart from the aforesaid, it could not be clarified as to why the appeals have been preferred when the matter is covered by the judgement of Supreme Court in the case of Jagjit Singh (supra). Denial of the benefit at the minimum of pay scale cannot be on the ground that the petitioners / non-appellants are daily wagers, when they were serving the departments for last many years and discharging the duties of same nature. The State Government needs to act as a modal employer but in the instant case, the employees at the lowest level are being given a treatment not appropriate for the modal employer.
9. Accordingly, the appeals are dismissed with the cost of Rs. 3000/- (three thousand). The State Government would be at liberty to recover the aforesaid amount from the Officer, who passed the order on 5.1.2016 or advised for filing of these appeals. The cost would be paid to the petitioner / non- appellants within a month from today.
Order Date :- 12.7.2021
Rahul Dwivedi/-
(Piyush Agrawal,J.) (Munishwar Nath Bhandari,A.C.J.)
