Allahabad High Court
State Of U P And 3 Others vs Sarvendra on 24 July, 2023
Bench: Manoj Kumar Gupta, Donadi Ramesh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:146806-DB
Court No. - 21
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 316 of 2023
Appellant :- State Of U P And 3 Others
Respondent :- Sarvendra
Counsel for Appellant :- Ashish Mohan Srivastava
Counsel for Respondent :- Rabindra Nath Ojha,Om Prakash Ojha
Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Gupta,J.
Hon'ble Donadi Ramesh,J.
Delay Condonation Application of the Special Appeal No. 4 of 2023:
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The delay has been sufficiently explained in the affidavit filed in support of delay condonation application.
3. Accordingly, the delay is condoned.
4. The application is allowed.
5. Office is directed to allot a regular number to the appeal.
Order on memo of appeal:
1. The instant intra court appeal is directed against the order of learned Single Judge dated 02.11.2022, by which the writ petition filed by the petitioner (respondents herein) was allowed in terms of judgment dated 06.08.2020 passed in Writ Petition No. 12778 (SS) of 2020. The effect of the order of the learned Single Judge is that the petitioner, who was working as daily wager since 2016 has been directed to be given minimum of the pay scale relying on the judgment/Order of this court dated 25-01-2019 passed in Writ Petition No. 16326(S/S) of 2017, inre : Ramesh Kumar Yadav Versus State of U.P. and Others. The said Judgment/Order dated 25-01-2019 was challenged in the Special Appeal Defective No 338 of 2019, by the State and the said Special Appeal Defective No. 338 of 2019 was dismissed by this court by a detailed order dated 18-09-2019. Against the Judgment/Order dated 18-09-2019 passed in the Special Appeal Defective No. 338 of 2019, the State preferred Special Leave to Appeal No. 2665 of 2019, before the Supreme Court and the same was also dismissed by the Supreme Court vide its order dated 22-11-2019 and thereafter, minimum of the pay scale was given to Sri Ramesh Kumar Yadav by order dated 06-12-2019. The said judgment places reliance on the decision of Supreme Court in case of State of U.P. vs. Putti Lal, (2006) 9 SCC 337, State of Punjab and Others vs. Jagjit Singh and Others, (2017) 1 SCC 148 and Sabha Shankar Dube vs. Divisional Forest Officer & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 10956 of 2018. The relevant part from the said judgment is extracted below:-
"Hon'ble Supreme Court in a recent judgment dated 14.11.2018 passed in the case of Sabha Shanker Dube Vs. Divisional Forest Officer & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 10956 of 2018, while considering the issue as to whether such persons are entitled for salary in the minimum of pay scale or not, held as under:-
"9. On a comprehensive consideration of the entire law on the subject of parity of pay scales on the principle of equal pay for equal work, this Court in Jagjit Singh (supra) held as follows:
"58. In our considered view, it is fallacious to determine artificial parameters to deny fruits of labour. An employee engaged for the same work cannot be paid less than another who performs the same duties and responsibilities. Certainly not, in a welfare State. Such an action besides being demeaning, strikes at the very foundation of human dignity. Anyone, who is compelled to work at a lesser wage does not do so voluntarily. He does so to provide food and shelter to his family, at the cost of his selfrespect and dignity, at the cost of his self-worth, and at the cost of his integrity. For he knows that his dependants would suffer immensely, if he does not accept the lesser wage. Any act of paying less wages as compared to others similarly situate constitutes an act of exploitative enslavement, emerging out of a domineering position. Undoubtedly, the action is oppressive, suppressive and coercive, as it compels involuntary subjugation?
10. The issue that was considered by this Court in Jagjit Singh (supra) is whether temporary employees (daily wage employees, ad hoc appointees, employees appointed on casual basis, contractual employees and likewise) are entitled to the minimum of the regular pay scales on account of their performing the same duties which are discharged by those engaged on regular basis against the sanctioned posts. After considering several judgments including the judgments of this Court in Tilak Raj (supra) and Surjit Singh (supra), this Court held that temporary employees are entitled to draw wages at the minimum of the pay scales which are applicable to the regular employees holding the same post.
11. 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.
12. We express no opinion on the contention of the State Government that the Appellants are not entitled to the reliefs as they are not working on Group ''D' posts and that some of them worked for short periods in projects.
13. For the aforementioned reasons, we allow these Appeals and set aside the judgments of the High Court holding that the Appellants are entitled to be paid the minimum of the pay scales applicable to regular employees working on the same posts. The State of Uttar Pradesh is directed to make payment of the minimum of pay scales to the Appellants with effect from 1st December, 2018."
The principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in State of U.P. & Others Vs. Putti Lal reported in 2006 (9) SCC 337 and State of Punjab and Others Vs. Jagjit Singh and Others reported in 2017 (1) SCC 148 have been specifically reiterated and re-enforced.".
2. Learned Standing Counsel submits that the work of the petitioner was casual in nature. He was not working against any regular post. There is no policy of the State Government to give regular pay to a daily wager.
3. In case of Dhani Ram, in terms of which the learned Single Judge has decided the writ petition, the petitioner was working as driver on daily wage basis since 2005. The learned Single Judge in that case placing reliance on the judgments referred to above granted him the relief of minimum of the pay scale on the principle of equal pay for equal work. It is not disputed before us that the petitioner has been continuously working as a daily wager since the year, 2016. Although, it is alleged that the petitioner was only helping the mali employed on regular basis, but the evidence brought on record does not show that the petitioner was not working continuously or was not performing the same duties. Therefore, we find no illegality in the order of the learned Single Judge in directing the State to pay minimum of the pay scale to the petitioner (respondent herein).
4. The appeal lacks merit and dismissed, accordingly.
(Donadi Ramesh, J.) (Manoj Kumar Gupta, J.)
Order Date :- 24.7.2023
Ruhi H.
