Allahabad High Court
Bhagwan Deen And Others vs State Of U.P. Thru. Its Prin.Secy. ... on 9 May, 2024
Author: Abdul Moin
Bench: Abdul Moin
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:36029
Court No. - 6
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 3079 of 2024
Petitioner :- Bhagwan Deen And Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Its Prin.Secy. Deptt. Of Forest Lko. And Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Shailendra Singh Chauhan,Hanumant Lal Yadav
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Abdul Moin,J.
1. Counter affidavit filed today is taken on record.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners states that he does not intend to file reply to the same and prays that the matter may be heard and decided finally.
3. With the consent of learned counsel appearing for the contesting parties, the writ petition is finally being decided.
4. Under challenge is the order dated 04.05.2023, a copy of which is annexure 1 to the petition, whereby the claim of the petitioners for grant of the minimum pay scale as per 7th pay commission along with arrears since March, 2018, has been rejected.
5. The ground of rejection is that in terms of the Regularization Rules namelyU.P. Regularization of Daily Wages Appointments on Group 'D' Posts Rules, 2001 (hereinafter referred to as "Rules, 2001"), the petitioners are not in continuous service since prior to 29.06.1991 till the date of promulgation of Rules, 2001 i.e. 21.12.2001, consequently, they are not entitled for being granted the minimum pay scale.
6. The aforesaid ground taken by the respondents while rejecting the claim of the petitioners for grant of minimum pay scale is patently misconceived inasmuch as, the aforesaid ground could be a ground for non consideration of the claim of the petitioners for regularization but once the petitioners were working as daily wager, consequently, there cannot be any occasion for the respondents to have invoked the ground, which may be permissible for regularization, for denying the benefits to the petitioner of the minimum pay scale.
7. In this regard, it would be apt to indicate that the Apex Court in the case of Sabha Shankar Dube Vs. Divisional Forest Officer 2019 (12) SCC 297 has held that till such time the temporary employee continues to work, he would be entitled for the minimum pay scale.
8. Accordingly, considering the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Sabha Shankar Dube (supra) as well as the fact that the respondents have rejected the claim of the petitioner for grant of minimum pay scale solely on the ground that that they have not worked continuously since prior to 29.06.1991 till the date of promulgation of Rules, 2001 i.e. 21.12.2001 as such, they are not entitled for grant of minimum pay scale, is patently misconceived and consequently, the order impugned dated 04.05.2023, a copy of which is annexure 1 to the petition, is quashed. The respondents are directed to ensure the payment of minimum pay scale to the petitioner as applicable to regular employees working on the similar posts.
9. Let the compliance of this order be made within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order.
Order Date :- 9.5.2024
S. Shivhare
