Allahabad High Court
Ashutosh Verma vs State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief ... on 3 November, 2022
Bench: Alok Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 8
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 7312 of 2022
Petitioner :- Ashutosh Verma
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Agriculture Deptt., Lko. And 3 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Ajay Madhavan,Piyush Agnihotri,Shiva Shashank
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.
1. Heard Sri Ajay Madhavan, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.
2. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, present writ petition is decided at the admission stage itself.
3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner is working as daily wage employee in the office Assistant Director, Soil Testing & Culture, Regional Land Testing Laboratory, Kanpur Nagar. It is stated that petitioner is continuously working since last 14 years and therefore he should be paid minimum of pay-scale, which is granted to regular employees. In this regard petitioner has given representation to the respondents but the same was not considered and consequently, petitioner approached this Court by means of Writ Petition No. 1760 of 2022, which was disposed of by means of order dated 30.03.2022, with direction to the respondents to consider and decide representation of the petitioner expeditiously.
4. It is in compliance of directions issued by this Court on 30.03.2022, that the impugned order dated 29.09.2022, has been passed by the Additional Director Agriculture (Administration), Soil Testing, Krishi Bhawan, Lucknow whereby petitioner's representation has been rejected, only on the ground that judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of U.P. Vs. Putti Lal, 2006 (9) SCC 337, is not applicable to the case of the petitioner.
5. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that there is no dispute regarding the fact that petitioner was working on the date of passing of the order dated 29.09.2022, it has been duly recorded in para 4 of the said order. The petitioner being daily wage employee is receiving Rs.201/- per day and he claims entitlement for being paid minimum of pay-scale.
6. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that similar daily wage employee one Bhola Dutt was granted minimum of the pay-scale by means of order of the Court dated 03.07.2014, passed in Writ Petition No. 5508 (S/S) of 2013, and this Court had further relied upon the similar order passed in Writ Petition No. 2428 (S/S) of 1999, while giving benefit to the said daily wager.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is also entitled to parity with Bhola Dutt as well as he is fully covered by the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of U.P. Vs. Putti Lal (supra).
8. Learned Standing Counsel submits that the petitioner is daily wage employee and he has been given enhanced wages as prescribed in the Government Orders issued from time to time and there is no infirmity in the impugned order.
9. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
10. The petitioner is working as daily wage employee since 2008 and is working for the last 14 years regularly, this fact is not disputed in the impugned order, which states that petitioner has received salary regularly from June, 2008 onwards. The impugned order also records that the petitioner has been paid wages as prescribed in the Government Order issued from time to time.
11. Grievance of the petitioner as raised by him was also considered by the Apex Court in the case of State of U.P. Vs. Putti Lal (supra), wherein para 5 of the judgment the Court has observed as under :-
"5. In several cases this Court applying the principle of equal pay for equal work has held that a daily wager, if he is discharging the similar duties as those in the regular employment of the Government, should at least be entitled to receive the minimum of the pay scale though he might not be entitled to any increment or any other allowance that is permissible to his counter part in the Government. In our opinion that would be the correct position and we, therefore, direct that these daily-wagers would be entitled to draw at the minimum of the pay scale being received by their counter part in the Government and would not be entitled to any other allowances or increment so long as they continue as daily wager. The question of their regular absorption will obviously be dealt with in accordance with the statutory rule already referred to."
12. Petitioner has also submitted that similarly placed employee one Bhola Dutt was also directed for payment of minimum of pay scale by means of order dated 03.07.2014, passed in Writ Petition No. 5508 (S/S) of 2013, and the said order has been complied by the respondents by order dated 18.12.2015 and Bhola Dutt is presently getting minimum of pay scale.
13. In the light of above, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner who is working for the last 14 years as daily wage employee is also entitled for payment of minimum pay scale. It is further provided that the case of the petitioner is covered by the judgment of Apex Court in the case of State of U.P. Vs. Putti Lal (supra), the impugned order discriminates with the petitioner and the same is arbitrary and illegal and is hereby set aside.
14. In the light of above, the respondents are directed to pay minimum of the pay-scale as admissible to the petitioner from the next month onwards.
15. the writ petition is allowed.
Order Date :- 3.11.2022
A. Verma
(Alok Mathur, J.)
