Allahabad High Court
Prithavi vs Divisional Forest Officer And 2 ... on 7 December, 2022
Bench: Pankaj Bhatia
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 34
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 2841 of 2020
Petitioner :- Prithavi
Respondent :- Divisional Forest Officer And 2 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Sudhanshu Narain
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.
The present petition has been filed challenging the order dated 26th September, 2019, whereby the claim of the petitioner for minimum pay scale has been rejected on the ground that there were no evidence adduced by the petitioner to demonstrate that the work done by the others was similar to the work done by the petitioner, who stood regularized.
The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the said order impugned in the writ petition is contrary to the judgement of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab and Others Vs. Jagjit Singh and Others; 2017 (1) SCC 148 and followed in the case of Sabha Shanker Dube Vs. Divisional Forest Officer & Others; 2018 LawSuit (SC) 1134.
A perusal of the impugned order reveals that the petitioner has been denied the benefit only on the ground that he could not demonstrate that he was doing the work which was similar to the work done by the persons, who are regularized. The same is clearly contrary to the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab and Others Vs. Jagjit Singh and Others (Supra) and followed in the case of Sabha Shanker Dube Vs. Divisional Forest Officer & Others (Supra), wherein the Supreme Court had observed as under:-
"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."
In view of the fact that the petitioner was admittedly working as daily wage employee, although not regularized, he would be entitled to the benefit of minimum pay scale in the light of the decision in the case of State of Punjab and Others Vs. Jagjit Singh and Others (Supra).
The writ petition stands allowed. The impugned order dated 26.09.2019 is quashed. The petitioner shall be paid the benefits of minimum scale of pay with all expedition, preferably within a period of four months from today.
Order Date :- 7.12.2022
Shafique
