Allahabad High Court
Ram Suresh vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy., Forest, ... on 16 May, 2024
Author: Abdul Moin
Bench: Abdul Moin
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:37545
Court No. - 6
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 3624 of 2024
Petitioner :- Ram Suresh
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy., Forest, Deptt. Of Enviroment Forest And Climate Change And Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Santosh Srivastava,Manish Kumar Srivastava
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Abdul Moin,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Jogendra Nath Verma, the learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and perused the record.
2. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition is being decided finally.
3. Facts of the case have already been discussed vide order dated 09.05.2024. For convenience order dated 09.05.2024 is reproduced hereunder:-
"1. Heard.
2. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner has been working on fixed wages since 2008 in the Forest Department.
3. Reliance has been placed on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Sabha Shanker Dube vs. Divisional Forest Officer and others- (2019) 12 SCC 297, to contend that the Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforesaid judgment has categorically held that the temporary employee is entitled to minimum of the pay scale as long as he continues in service.
4. Reliance has also been placed on an interim order of this Court dated 09.11.2023 in Writ-A No.9383 of 2023 in re: Vijay Kumar Srivastava vs. State of U.P. and 2 others, a copy of which has been filed as Annexure-4 to the petition, wherein a direction has been issued by this Court at Allahabad that all the petitioners and other similarly situated workers/employees would be paid minimum of basic pay @ Rs.18,000/- in compliance of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of U.P. and others vs. Putti Lal - (2006) 9 SCC 337 until their claim for regularisation is disposed of by framing guidelines.
5. The contention is that once the petitioner is working on fixed wages since the year 2014 and is continuously working as per specific averment made in paragraph 3 of the petition consequently the petitioner would be entitled for the benefit of the interim order of this Court dated 09.11.2023 passed in the case of Vijay Kumar Srivastava (supra) as well as the judgments of the Apex Court in the case of Sabha Shanker Dube (supra) and Putti Lal (supra).
6. Learned Standing Counsel prays for and is granted a week's time to seek instructions in the matter as to why the petitioner be not given the benefit of the judgments of the Apex Court in the case of Sabha Shanker Dube (supra) and Putti Lal (supra) as well as the interim order of this Court in the case of Vijay Kumar Srivastava (supra). List in the next week as fresh. "
4. Today, Sri Jogendra Nath Verma, the learned Standing Counsel, on the basis of instructions, states that the petitioner has been working on fixed wages since 2014 in the Forest Department, as and when there is a work.
5. The said instructions may not detain the Court inasmuch as the Apex Court in the case of Sabha Shanker Dube (supra) has categorically held that till such time a temporary employee continues to work, he would be entitled to be paid minimum of regular pay scale.
6. Considering the aforesaid writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the competent authority to ensure that till such time the petitioner continues to work, he would be given the minimum of pay scale as admissible to an employee working on Group D post.
Order Date :- 16.5.2024
prateek
