Allahabad High Court
Jai Prakash Verma And Others vs State Of U.P. Thru. Addl./Prin. ... on 9 February, 2023
Bench: Vivek Chaudhary
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 4
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 8812 of 2022
Petitioner :- Jai Prakash Verma And Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl./Prin. Secy. Horticulture And Food Process. Deptt. Lko. And Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Anupama Bhadauria,Rakesh Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Vivek Chaudhary,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel for the State.
The petitioners, who were appointed in between the years 2003-2012 and are working as daily wagers, have approached this Court claiming that though they have been working and performing their duties as good as regularly working Malis in the Department but the minimum of the pay scale is not being paid as settled by the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Sabha Shanker Dube Vs. Divisional Forest Officers and others; (2019) 12 Supreme Court Cases 297. The relevant Paragraph 12, thus, reads as under:-
12. 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.
A counter affidavit is filed by the respondent no.2/Director, Horticulture & Food Processing, U.P. Lucknow, taking a stand that the petitioners were engaged merely on daily wages and they have never been engaged against any post nor there is any appointment in favour of the petitioners, as such their evaluation of work and efficiency etc. is not checked in any manner and the labours like the petitioners were only on daily wage basis and performed different type of non-technical work.
The respondent no.2, was asked to file specific affidavit indicating that in case the said persons are not available to work which of the employees of the State Government would be performing the said duties. In the supplementary counter affidavit dated 8.2.2023, the respondent no.2/Director, Horticulture & Food Processing, in Paragraph 4 has stated that where daily rated labours are not available the work is performed by the regularly appointed Malis in the regular cadre of Malis in the Department.
It is not disputed by the respondent no.2/Director, Horticulture & Food Processing that the persons are working regularly since the year 2003-2012 and are performing the duties which in the normal course would be performed by the Malis.
In the given facts and circumstances, the law settled by the Supreme Court in the judgment of Sabha Shanker Dube Vs. Divisional Forest Officers and others (Supra), the petitioners are entitled for being granted the minimum of the pay scale.
In view thereof, the respondents are directed to pay minimum of the pay scale to the petitioners forthwith.
The writ petition is allowed.
(Vivek Chaudhary,J.)
Order Date :- 9.2.2023
Arjun/-
