Allahabad High Court
State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief ... vs Ram Naresh on 29 August, 2023
Bench: Vivek Chaudhary
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:58143
Reserved
Case :- CIVIL MISC REVIEW APPLICATION DEFECTIVE No. - 144 of 2023
Applicant :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Estate Deptt. Lko. And Another
Opposite Party :- Ram Naresh
Counsel for Applicant :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Vivek Chaudhary, J.
1. Heard Sri Indrajeet Shukla, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-review applicants (respondents in the writ petition).
2. This an application filed for review of judgment and order dated 10.2.2023 passed by this Court. In review application itself, no grounds are taken. However, in the interest of justice, affidavit filed in support of review application is taken into consideration.
3. Admitted facts, as per applicants, are that petitioner (opposite party herein) is a daily wager, who is a handicapped person and along with other daily wagers of department, is being paid minimum of pay scale as revised by 6th Pay Commission. There is no disparity made between respondent and other similarly situated daily wagers for payment of minimum of pay scale as revised by 6th Pay Commission. The petitioner claimed for benefit of 7th Pay Commission also as the same is being provided to regular employees of the department. This Court considered the submissions and on the basis of law settled by the Supreme Court, referred to in the judgment and order dated 10.2.2023, found that temporary daily wagers are entitled to minimum of pay scale as is being given to their counterparts performing the same work. Hence, benefit of 7th Pay Commission, which was provided to regular employees, was also provided to the petitioner.
4. At the outset, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel, appearing for the review-applicants, states that writ petition is decided without calling any counter affidavit from the State, therefore, the order should be reviewed/recalled. Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel was permitted to place any relevant fact that he so desires in support of this review application.
5. Thus, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel first tried to distinguish that petitioner is a handicapped person and is not doing the same work as is being done by regular employees and his performance is not good.
6. Such a stand cannot be taken by the State as admittedly petitioner along with rest of the employees is being paid same minimum of pay scale, revised by 6th Pay Commission, as is being paid to other employees of the department, therefore, merely for granting benefit of 7th Pay Commission, a distinction cannot now be drawn between petitioner and other employees.
7. Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel has further submitted that petitioner cannot claim parity with regular employees as he is not performing the same duties.
8. Again, it is not in dispute that petitioner and other daily wagers are being paid minimum of pay scale being paid to regular employees as per law settled by the Supreme Court, now therefore, State cannot make a distinction between petitioner and other daily wagers in granting minimum of pay scale as is being paid to regular employees.
9. Next submission of learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel is that petitioner had also claimed for regularization of his services in his writ petition. He submits that the said issue could not have been decided without a counter affidavit.
10. A bare perusal of judgment and order dated 10.2.2023 shows that this Court has not granted any relief to the petitioner for his regularization, therefore, the same cannot be a ground for review of judgment and order dated 10.2.2023.
11. Law settled by the Supreme Court repeatedly is that daily wagers are entitled for minimum of pay scale as is being paid to regular Class-IV employees performing the same duties. Once admittedly the petitioner performing the same duties is paid minimum of pay scale of 6th Pay Commission as earlier was applicable under the law settled by the Supreme Court, he is entitled for the same minimum of pay scale, which is being granted to regular employees now. Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel could not show any law contrary to the same.
12. In view of aforesaid, there is no force in any of the submissions made by learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel.
13. Thus, the present review application is rejected.
[Vivek Chaudhary,J.]
Dated: August 29, 2023
Sachin
