Allahabad High Court
Sukh Das And Others vs State Of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief 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:35816
Court No. - 6
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 2698 of 2024
Petitioner :- Sukh Das And Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy. Horticulture Lko. And Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Mohd. Ateeq Khan
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Abdul Moin,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing counsel for the State-respondent(s).
2. With the consent of learned counsel appearing for the contesting parties, the writ petition is finally being decided.
3. The facts of the case have already been stated in the order dated 04.04.2024. For the sake of convenience, the order dated 04.04.2024 is reproduced below:
"1. Heard.
2. Under challenge is the order dated 08.02.2024, a copy of which is Annexure-1 to the petition, passed by the Director, Horticulture and Food Processing, Lucknow i.e. respondent no.2 whereby the claim of the petitioners for grant of minimum pay scale as per 7th Pay Commission has been rejected.
3. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that the petitioners had earlier approached this Court by filing Writ-A No.7838 of 2023 in re: Sukh Das and others vs. State of U.P. and others, seeking a direction to the respondents for grant of minimum pay scale as per revised recommendation of the 7th Pay Commission.
4. The writ Court vide judgment and order dated 10.10.2023, a copy of which is Annexure-13 to the writ petition, considering that in a similar matter of Pradeep Kumar Shukla vs. State of U.P. and others passed in Writ-A No.1287 of 2023, the respondents have granted the benefit of 7th Pay Commission pertaining to minimum pay scale, disposed of the petition with a direction to the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioners in the light of the judgment of this Court in the case of Pradeep Kumar Shukla (supra).
5. In pursuance thereof, the claim of the petitioners has been considered and rejected vide impugned order dated 08.02.2024.
6. From perusal of the order impugned primarily two grounds come out for rejection namely (a) that the petitioners are casual workers and are not a temporary employee, and (b) that the petitioners are not working against any regularly sanctioned post and hence are not entitled for the benefit of the minimum pay scale of the 7th Pay Commission.
7. However, admittedly the petitioners have already been granted the benefit of minimum pay scale as per 6th Pay Commission.
8. Incidentally, the judgment of this Court passed in the case of Pradeep Kumar Shukla (supra) has been filed as Annexure-9 to the petition, wherein Sri Pradeep Kumar Shukla who was a daily wager had approached this Court for a similar relief as has been sought by the petitioners and this Court issued a mandamus commanding the respondents to pay the minimum of pay scale to Sri Shukla which is being paid to regularly working employees performing the same work. In pursuance thereof, Sri Pradeep Kumar Shukla has already been paid minimum pay scale as per order dated 21.06.2023, a copy of which is Annexure-10 to the petition.
9. A perusal of the grounds as indicated in the order impugned dated 08.02.2024 prima facie do not justify the rejection of the claim of the petitioners inasmuch as Sri Pradeep Kumar Shukla was also a daily wager as specifically finds place in the judgment of this Court dated 10.02.2023 passed in the case of Pradeep Kumar Shukla (supra) consequently the order impugned dated 08.02.2024 does not stand to reason.
10. Learned Standing Counsel prays for and is granted two weeks' time to seek instructions and to justify the order impugned dated 08.02.2024. List thereafter as fresh."
4. Today, learned Standing counsel, on the basis of instructions dated 30.04.2024 sent by the respondent No.3 i.e. District Horticulture Officer, Rampur, states that the petitioners are casual workers and are being paid on daily wages.
5. The aforesaid statement is recorded.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that all these aspects of the matter have been considered by this Court in the case of Prem Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and Others passed in Writ A No.3232 of 2024 decided on 25.04.2024 and it is prayed that the benefit of the said order be also extended to the petitioners.
7. To the aforesaid argument, learned Standing counsel has no objection.
8. Considering the aforesaid consensus, the writ petition is allowed. The order impugned dated 08.02.2024, a copy of which is annexure 1 to the petition, is quashed. The respondents are directed to pay minimum pay scale to the petitioners that is being paid to similarly situated regular employees performing the same work.
Order Date :- 9.5.2024/S. Shivhare
