Allahabad High Court
Deepu Yadav And 3 Other vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. ... on 4 March, 2025
Author: Alok Mathur
Bench: Alok Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:13234
Court No. - 6
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 2485 of 2025
Petitioner :- Deepu Yadav And 3 Other
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Horticulture , U.P. Lko. And 2 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Mohd. Ateeq Khan
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.
1. Heard Mohd. Ateeq Khan, learned counsel for petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel for respondents and perused the material available on record.
2. With the consent of learned counsel for parties, the writ petition being being heard and decided at the admission stage itself.
3. By means of present writ petition, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 01.01.2025 passed by Director Horticulture, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow thereby rejecting the representation of the petitioners wherein they had claimed for grant of minimum of the pay scale as is applicable to Class IV employees.
4. It has been submitted by learned counsel for petitioners that the petitioners are appointed as daily-wagers from the year 2008 to 2014 under the District Horticulture Officer, Sitapur and they were not being given the minimum pay-scale wherein daily wager appointed after the appointment of the petitioners are getting Rs. 18,000/- per month. To demonstrate their employment, the petitioners haveannexed copy of Muster roll for 2008 and 2024. He has further submitted that similar placed employees are already getting minimum of the pay scale in terms of recommendation of 7th Pay Commission of Rs. 18,000/- per month including Sri Ramesh Kumar Yadav, Dhaniram, Anil Chand Pandey and Gopal Das.
5. It is in the aforesaid circumstances, the petitioners approached this Court on the previous occasion by filling a writ petition being Writ A No. 10991 of 2024 which was disposed of by means of order dated 22.11.2024 directing respondents to consider and decide the representation of by reasoned and speaking order within three months. It is in compliance of the direction of this Court dated 22.11.2024 that the impugned order dated 01.01.2025 has been passed rejecting the representation of the petitioners.
6. A perusal of the impugned order would clearly indicate that in paragraph No. 3, it has been stated that petitioner is a casual labourer whose services are taking from time to time but it is also admitted that he works in the Nursery maintained by the respondents and also at other times the work of cleaning of the offices is also undertaken by him. It is in the aforesaid circumstances, the respondents have taken pain to demonstrate that their services are not equivalent to a temporary or adhoc employee and a casual labourer like the petitioner would not be entitled to the benefit of minimum of pay scale.
7. Learned counsel for petitioners on the other hand has submitted that the impugned order itself demonstrate that he is in regular employment with the respondents. Paragraph No. 3 which has been noticed by this Court clearly indicates that the work from the petitioners are taken in the Nursery maintained by the respondents as well as in cleaning the offices. Accordingly, there is no dispute with regard to the employment of the petitioners with the respondents.
8. It is noticed that in matter of contractual appointment, Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the recent case of Jaggo Vs. Union of India and Others, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3826 has observed as under:-
" 22. The pervasive misuse of temporary employment contracts, as exemplified in this case, reflects a broader systemic issue that adversely affects workers' rights and job security. In the private sector, the rise of the gig economy has led to an increase in precarious employment arrangements, often characterized by lack of benefits, job security, and fair treatment. Such practices have been criticized for exploiting workers and undermining labour standards. Government institutions, entrusted with upholding the principles of fairness and justice, bear an even greater responsibility to avoid such exploitative employment practices. When public sector entities engage in misuse of temporary contracts, it not only mirrors the detrimental trends observed in the gig economy but also sets a concerning precedent that can erode public trust in governmental operations.
25. It is a disconcerting reality that temporary employees, particularly in government institutions, often face multifaceted forms of exploitation. While the foundational purpose of temporary contracts may have been to address short-term or seasonal needs, they have increasingly become a mechanism to evade longterm obligations owed to employees. These practices manifest in several ways:
Misuse of "Temporary" Labels:Employees engaged for work that is essential, recurring, and integral to the functioning of an institution are often labeled as "temporary" or "contractual," even when their roles mirror those of regular employees. Such misclassification deprives workers of the dignity, security, and benefits that regular employees are entitled to, despite performing identical tasks.
Arbitrary Termination:Temporary employees are frequently dismissed without cause or notice, as seen in the present case. This practice undermines the principles of natural justice and subjects workers to a state of constant insecurity, regardless of the quality or duration of their service.
Lack of Career Progression:Temporary employees often find themselves excluded from opportunities for skill development, promotions, or incremental pay raises. They remain stagnant in their roles, creating a systemic disparity between them and their regular counterparts, despite their contributions being equally significant.
Using Outsourcing as a Shield:Institutions increasingly resort to outsourcing roles performed by temporary employees, effectively replacing one set of exploited workers with another. This practice not only perpetuates exploitation but also demonstrates a deliberate effort to bypass the obligation to offer regular employment.
Denial of Basic Rights and Benefits:Temporary employees are often denied fundamental benefits such as pension, provident fund, health insurance, and paid leave, even when their tenure spans decades. This lack of social security subjects them and their families to undue hardship, especially in cases of illness, retirement, or unforeseen circumstances.
26. While the judgment in Uma Devi (supra) sought to curtail the practice of backdoor entries and ensure appointments adhered to constitutional principles, it is regrettable that its principles are often misinterpreted or misapplied to deny legitimate claims of long-serving employees. This judgment aimed to distinguish between "illegal" and "irregular" appointments. It categorically held that employees in irregular appointments, who were engaged in duly sanctioned posts and had served continuously for more than ten years, should be considered for regularization as a one-time measure. However, the laudable intent of the judgment is being subverted when institutions rely on its dicta to indiscriminately reject the claims of employees, even in cases where their appointments are not illegal, but merely lack adherence to procedural formalities. Government departments often cite the judgment in Uma Devi (supra) to argue that no vested right to regularization exists for temporary employees, overlooking the judgment's explicit acknowledgment of cases where regularization is appropriate. This selective application distorts the judgment's spirit and purpose, effectively weaponizing it against employees who have rendered indispensable services over decades.
27. In light of these considerations, in our opinion, it is imperative for government departments to lead by example in providing fair and stable employment. Engaging workers on a temporary basis for extended periods, especially when their roles are integral to the organization's functioning, not only contravenes international labour standards but also exposes the organization to legal challenges and undermines employee morale. By ensuring fair employment practices, government institutions can reduce the burden of unnecessary litigation, promote job security, and uphold the principles of justice and fairness that they are meant to embody. This approach aligns with international standards and sets a positive precedent for the private sector to follow, thereby contributing to the overall betterment of labour practices in the country.
28. In view of the above discussion and findings, the appeals are allowed. The impugned orders passed by the High Court and the Tribunal are set aside and the original application is allowed to the following extent:
i. The termination orders dated 27.10.2018 are quashed;
ii. The appellants shall be taken back on duty forthwith and their services regularised forthwith. However, the appellants shall not be entitled to any pecuniary benefits/back wages for the period they have not worked for but would be entitled to continuity of services for the said period and the same would be counted for their post-retiral benefits."
9. The next question arises is as to whether even if they work on casual basis in the Nursery maintained by the respondents as well as in the offices regularly would such a person be entitled to given minimum of pay scale.
10. Considering the aforesaid facts, this Court in similar circumstances, in the case of Santosh Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and others (Writ A No. 9722 of 2023) has held that such a person would be entitled to minimum of pay scale which is applicable to the regular employees working on the same post. The State being aggrieved by the order of Coordinate Bench of this Court had filed a special appeal being Special Appeal Defective No. 597 of 2024 which was rejected with the following observations:
"5. It may be noted that that work discharged by the helper in the filed like Mali are akin to the function of a mali and at best the classification of skilled or semiskilled may be drawn between such employees which as per the averments made in the counter affidavit has not been empirically drawn or projected by the State. The respondents, who are admittedly daily wage employees, are working. Therefore, there is no reason as to why the benefit of judgment rendered by this Court as has been placed reliance upon by the writ court may not be extended to the respondent in the present case. In absence of any perversity pointed out or illegality by which the impugned judgment may suffer from, we decline to interfere in the present special appeal."
11. Accordingly, the dispute in the present case as raised by the respondents is only with regard to nature of work taken from the petitioners and there is no dispute that they are regularly employed since 2008 to 2014 and working as a Class-IV employee.
12. In light of the above, there is no reason for this Court to take a different view as to what has been taken by Division Bench of this Court in the case of Santosh Kumar. Accordingly, the writ petition stands allowed. The impugned order dated 01.01.20254 is quashed.
13. The petitioners shall be entitled to minimum of pay scale as applicable to the regular employees working on the said post. The respondent No. 2 is directed to pay the minimum of the pay scale to the petitioner forthwith.
(Alok Mathur, J.)
Order Date :- 4.3.2025
Ravi/
