Allahabad High Court
Ram Naresh vs State Of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief ... on 10 February, 2023
Bench: Vivek Chaudhary
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 4
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 231 of 2023
Petitioner :- Ram Naresh
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy. Estate Deptt. Lko. And Another
Counsel for Petitioner :- Mohammad Tauseef Siddiqui
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Vivek Chaudhary,J.
Heard learned counsels for parties.
Petitioner, a daily wager, had approached this Court by way of Writ-A No.1434 of 2022; 'Ram Naresh Vs. State of U.P. and Others' claiming that he is entitled for payment of minimum pay scale as is being paid to other regular employees of the department. By order dated 15.03.2022, this court directed the respondent no.2 to decided his representation. In his representation made before the respondent no.2, petitioner claimed that he is entitled to payment of minimum pay scale as stands enhanced under the recommendation of 7th Pay Commission. His representation is rejected by the impugned order dated 29.04.2022. The sole ground taken in rejecting the representation is that the other similarly situated persons are being paid minimum of pay scale as revised by the 6th Pay Commission. None of the employee is being paid benefits of the 7th Pay Commission. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgments passed in cases of 'Haryana and another. Vs. Tilak 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.'
In the said judgments, the Supreme Court has held that temporary employees are entitled to minimum pay scale as is being paid to their counterparts performing the same work. There is no dispute that the petitioner is performing the same work as is being performmed by his regularly appointed counterparts in the department. Merely because respondents have not yet started giving benefit of 7th Pay Commission to the daily wagers employed in the department, while the benefit of the 7th Pay Commission is already extended to all the departmental employees, they cannot deny benefit of the 7th Pay Commission also to the daily wage employees.
This Court has already taken a similar view in its judgment and order dated 13.03.2022 passed Writ-A No.1803 of 2022; 'Indra Pal Vs. State of U.P. and Others'. A Special Appeal Defective No.44 of 2023 filed against the said order was also rejected by Division Bench of this Court by its judgment and order dated 03.02.2023. Hence, in the given facts and circumstances of the case, petitioner is also entitled to the benefit of the minimum of the pay scale which is being paid to regularly working employees of the same category performing the same work. In case regular employees are getting the benefit of 7th Pay Commission, petitioner is also entitled for the same. Even otherwise, by the impugned order, it was not open for the respondents to reject the representation of the petitioner in-toto. His representation ought to have been allowed to the extent of minimum pay scale as is being paid to other persons.
In view thereof, the impugned order dated 29.04.2022 cannot stand and the same is set aside.
Respondent no.2 Rajya Sampatti Adhikari, Raj Sampatti Vibhag, U.P., Lucknow is directed to pay minimum of the pay scale which is being paid to the regularly working employees performing the same work. Such an order shall be passed by respondent no.2 in favour of petitioner within a period of four weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is placed before him.
With the aforesaid directions, the writ petition stands allowed.
Order Date :- 10.2.2023
Arti/-
[Vivek Chaudhary,J.]
