Wednesday, 06, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Ram Prakash vs State Of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy. ...
2024 Latest Caselaw 17845 ALL

Citation : 2024 Latest Caselaw 17845 ALL
Judgement Date : 17 May, 2024

Allahabad High Court

Ram Prakash vs State Of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy. ... on 17 May, 2024

Author: Abdul Moin

Bench: Abdul Moin





HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:37964
 
Court No. - 6
 

 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 619 of 2024
 

 
Petitioner :- Ram Prakash
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy. Horticulture Deptt. Lko. And 2 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Rakesh Kumar Singh
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
 

 
Hon'ble Abdul Moin,J.
 

1. At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioner states that he does not intend to challenge the Government notification dated 08.05.2020, a copy of which is annexure 3 to the writ petition as the same may have no relevance considering the Judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Sabha Shanker Dube Vs. Divisional Forest Officer and Ors reported in (2019) 12 SCC 297.

2. Considering the aforesaid, the writ petition is dismissed so far as raises a challenge to the Government notification dated 08.05.2020.

3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Sandeep Sharma, learned Standing counsel appearing on behalf of the State-respondents.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that he does not want to file rejoinder affidavit to the counter affidavit filed by the respondents. Accordingly, the Court proceeds to hear the matter.

5. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner has been working on daily wages under the respondents since October, 2008 as per the chart, a copy of which has been filed as annexure 6 to the writ petition.

6. The petitioner has staked his claim for being granted the minimum of pay scale which claim has been rejected vide order impugned dated 27.06.2020, a copy of which is annexure 2 to the writ petition on the ground that the petitioner is working on daily wages and as per the notification dated 08.05.2020, daily wages are being paid to the petitioner.

7. The contention is that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sabha Shanker Dube (supra) has categorically held after considering its earlier judgment in the case of State of Punjab Vs. Jagjit Singh reported in (2017) 1 SCC 148 that temporary employees which also include daily wage employees, ad hoc employees, 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 duties which are discharged by those engaged on the sanctioned posts. Considering the said judgment as well as the judgments of State of Harayana Vs. Tilak Raj reported in 2003 (6) SCC 123 and State of Punjab Vs. Surjit Singh reported in 2009 (9) SCC 514 the Apex Court has 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.

8. It is contended that keeping in view the aforesaid proposition of law as laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Sabha Shanker Dubey (supra) and the respondents having admitted that the petitioner is working on daily wages consequently, considering the earlier judgment of Jagjit Singh (supra) and the Apex Court having held that even a daily wages would be entitled to the minimum of the pay scales consequently, the order impugned merits to be set aside on this ground alone and there cannot be any occasion for the petitioner to be paid the daily wages.

9. On the other hand, Sri Sandeep Sharma, learned Standing counsel does not dispute the aforesaid proposition of law as laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Sabha Shanker Dubey (supra).

10. Accordingly, keeping in view the aforesaid discussion more particularly the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Sabha Shanker Dubey (supra) wherein the Apex Court has held that temporary employees which also include, as per the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Jagjit Singh (supra) the daily wage employees, the respondents are directed to pay minimum of the pay scales which are applicable to regular employees to the petitioner as and when he continues to work on the post of Maali.

Order Date :- 17.5.2024

Pachhere/-

 

 

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IJJ

 

LatestLaws Partner Event : Smt. Nirmala Devi Bam Memorial International Moot Court Competition

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter