Allahabad High Court
Pradeep Kumar Shukla vs State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief ... on 31 May, 2022
Bench: Shree Prakash Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 17
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 3621 of 2022
Petitioner :- Pradeep Kumar Shukla
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Horticulture Deptt. Civil Sectt. Lko. And 3 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Krishna Nand Shukla
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned standing counsel for the State and perused the record.
Learned counsel appearing for the State submits that the minimum pay scale is not being paid to the petitioner as is being paid to the similarly situated regular employee of the same department. After the aforesaid arguments, he submits that in identical matter this Court has passed the order dated 10.3.2022 in Writ-A No 10737 of 2019 (Smt. Savitri Devi Vs. State of U.P. through Prin. Secy. Horticulture and Food). The order is being quoted here under:-
"Heard Dr. Deepti Tripathi, learned counsel for petitioner and learned standing counsel.
At the very outset, learned counsel for petitioner submits that though initially, there was claim of regularisation of petitioner as well as grant of minimum of pay scale but at present the petitioner is not pressing the prayer with regard to regularisation as the petitioner has not completed required years of service. Therefore, the prayer therefore, is being pressed only for payment of minimum pay scale that is being paid to regular employees in the department doing similar work.
Learned counsel for petitioners submits that the petitioners are working since 2009 with the respondent Horticulture Department as daily wage Maalis. all the work that is being taken as regular Maali in the Department is being taken from the petitioner. Thus, they are entitled to be considered for payment of minimum of regular pay scale as being paid to regular employees.
Suffice would be to refer to the judgments in the case of Haryana and another. Vs. Tilok Raj and others, (2003) 6 SCC 123. Sabha Shanker Dube. Vs. Divisional Forest Officer and others., (2019) 12 SCC 297 and State of U.P. and others. Vs. Putti Lal, (2006) SCC 337, where it was re-affirmed that temporary employees are entitled to minimum of the pay scales as long as they continue in the service as regards counterparts performing same work.
Learned standing counsel could not dispute the law settled by Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgments.
In view thereof, the respondents are directed to pay the petitioners the minimum of pay scale that is being paid to similarly situated regular employees performing the same work.
Writ petition is allowed."
He submits that this Court may direct the respondent to take a decision on the representation of the petitioner in the light of the aforesaid order.
In the light of the aforesaid submission, the respondent no. 4 is hereby directed to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner in light of the order dated 10.3.2022 passed in Writ-A No 10737 of 2019 (Smt. Savitri Devi Vs. State of U.P. through Prin. Secy. Horticulture and Food).
With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition is finally disposed of.
Order Date :- 31.5.2022
Arif
