Vikash Tripathi vs State Of U.P. And Another
2025 Latest Caselaw 7194 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Vikash Tripathi vs State Of U.P. And Another on 23 May, 2025

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:88352
 
Court No. - 38
 

 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 27716 of 2018
 

 
Petitioner :- Vikash Tripathi
 
Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Kripa Shanker Mishra
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Rohit Pandey
 

 
Hon'ble Donadi Ramesh,J.
 

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Shambhavi Tiwari, learned Counsel holding brief of Sri Rohit Pandey, learned counsel for the respondent and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondent.

2. The present writ petition is filed for the following reliefs:

"(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 14.08.2018 (Annexure-4 to the writ petition) passed by the respondent no.2.

(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to pay the present minimum pay scale to the petitioner, which is being provided to similar situated regular employees of institution in pursuance of the order of Hon'ble Supreme Court and the various orders passed by this Hon'ble Court."

3. After arguing the matter at some length, learned counsel for the petitioners has confined the prayer only to the minimum pay scale as directed by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab and others Vs. Jagjit Singh and others, reported in 2016 0 Supreme (SC) 869 and has laid emphasis on paragraph nos.48, 54, 55, 57 and 58 which reads as under:

48. It was then contended that the rights of the employees thus appointed, under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, are violated. It is stated that the State has treated the employees unfairly by employing them on less than minimum wages and extracting work from them for a pretty long period in comparison with those directly recruited who are getting more wages or salaries for doing similar work. The employees before us were engaged on daily wages in the department concerned on a wage that was made known to them. There is no case that the wage agreed upon was not being paid. Those who are working on daily wages formed a class by themselves, they cannot claim that they are discriminated as against those who have been regularly recruited on the basis of the relevant rules. No right can be founded on an employment on daily wages to claim that such employee should be treated on a par with a regularly recruited candidate, and made permanent in employment, even assuming that the principle could be Invoked for claiming equal wages for equal work. There is no fundamental right in those who have been employed on daily wages or temporarily or on contractual basis, to claim that they have a right to be absorbed in service. As has been held by this Court, they cannot be said to be holders of a post, since, a regular appointment could be made only by making appointments consistent with the requirements of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The right to be treated equally with the other employees employed on daily wages, cannot be extended to a claim for equal treatment with those who were regularly employed. That would be treating unequals as equals. It cannot also be relied on to claim a right to be absorbed in service even though they have never been selected in terms of the relevant recruitment rules. The arguments based on Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution are therefore overruled.

We have given our thoughtful consideration to the observations recorded by this Court, as were relied upon by the full bench (as also, by the learned counsel representing the State of Punjab). It is not possible for us to concur with the inference drawn by the full bench, for the reasons recorded hereunder:-

(i) We are of the considered view, that in paragraph 44 extracted above, the Constitution Bench clearly distinguished the issues of pay parity, and regularization in service. It was held, that on the issue of pay parity, the concept of 'equality' would be applicable (as had indeed been applied by the Court, in various decisions), but the principle of 'equality' could not be invoked for absorbing temporary employees in Government service, or for making temporary employees regular/permanent. All the observations made in the above extracted paragraphs, relate to the subject of regularization/permanence, and not, to the principle of 'equal pay for equal work'. As we have already noticed above, the Constitution Bench unambiguously held, that on the issue of pay parity, the High Court ought to have directed, that the daily-wage workers be paid wages equal to the salary, at the lowest grade of their cadre. This deficiency was made good, by making such a direction.

(ii) Insofar as paragraph 48 extracted above is concerned, all that needs to be stated is, that they were merely submissions of learned counsel, and not conclusions drawn by this Court. Therefore, nothing further needs to be stated, with reference to paragraph 48.

(iii) We are therefore of the view, that the High Court seriously erred in interpreting the judgment rendered by this Court in the Secretary, State of Karnataka case (Supra), by placing reliance on paragraphs 44 and 48 extracted above, for drawing its inferences with reference to the subject of pay parity. On the above subject/issue, this Court's conclusions were recorded in paragraph 55 (extracted in paragraph 36, hereinabove), which have already been dealt with by us in an earlier part of this judgment.

54. There is no room for any doubt, that the principle of 'equal pay for equal work' has emerged from an interpretation of different provisions of the Constitution. The principle has been expounded through a large number of judgments rendered by this Court, and constitutes law declared by this Court.

The same is binding on all the courts in India, under Article 141 of the Constitution of India. The parameters of the principle, have been summarized by us in paragraph 42 hereinabove. The principle of 'equal pay for equal work' has also been extended to temporary employees (differently described as work-charge, daily-wage, casual, ad-hoc, contractual, and the like). The legal position, relating to temporary employees, has been summarized by us, in paragraph 44 hereinabove. The above legal position which has been repeatedly declared, is being reiterated by us, yet again.

55. In our considered view, it is fallacious to determine artificial parameters to deny fruits of labour. An employee engaged for the same work, cannot be paid less than another, who performs the same duties and responsibilities. Certainly not, in a welfare state. Such an action besides being demeaning, strikes at the very foundation of human dignity. Any one, who is compelled to work at a lesser wage, does not do so voluntarily. He does so, to provide food and shelter to his family, at the cost of his self respect and dignity, at the cost of his self worth, and at the cost of his integrity. For he knows, that his dependents would suffer immensely, if he does not accept the lesser wage. Any act, of paying less wages, as compared to others similarly situate, constitutes an act of exploitative enslavement, emerging out of a domineering position. Undoubtedly, the action is oppressive, suppressive and coercive, as it compels involuntary subjugation.

57 Having traversed the legal parameters with reference to the application of the principle of 'equal pay for equal work', in relation to temporary employees (daily-wage employees, ad-hoc appointees, employees appointed on casual basis, contractual employees and the like), the sole factor that requires our determination is, whether the concerned employees (before this Court) were rendering similar duties and responsibilities, as were being discharged by regular employees, holding the same/corresponding posts. This exercise would require the application of the parameters of the principle of 'equal pay for equal work' summarized by us in paragraph 48 above. However, insofar as the instant aspect of the matter is concerned, it is not difficult for us to record the factual position. We say so, because it was fairly acknowledged by the learned counsel representing the State of Punjab, that all the temporary employees in the present bunch of appeals, were appointed against posts which were also available in the regular cadre/establishment. It was also accepted, that during the course of their employment, the concerned temporary employees were being randomly deputed to discharge duties and responsibilities, which at some point in time, were assigned to regular employees. Likewise, regular employees holding substantive posts, were also posted to discharge the same work, which was assigned to temporary employees, from time to time. There is, therefore, no room for any doubt, that the duties and responsibilities discharged by the temporary employees in the present set of appeals, were the same as were being discharged by regular employees. It is not the case of the appellants, that the respondent-employees did not possess the qualifications prescribed for appointment on regular basis. Furthermore, It is not the case of the State, that any of the temporary employees would not be entitled to pay parity, on any of the principles summarized by us in paragraph 42 hereinabove. There can be no doubt, that the principle of 'equal pay for equas work' would be applicable to all the corncerned temporary employees, so as to vest in them the right to claim wages, at par with the minimum of the pay-scale of regularly engaged government employees, holding the same post.

58. In view of the position expressed by us in the foregoing paragraph, we have no hesitation in holding, that all the concerned temporary employees, in the present bunch of cases, would be entitled to draw wages at the minimum of the pay-scale (-at the lowest grade, in the regular pay scale), extended to regular employees, holding the same post."

4. In view of the said circumstances as also the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Jagjit Singh (supra), the present writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioners for minimum of pay scale and take appropriate decision within a period of two months from the date of receipt of this order.

Order Date :- 23.5.2025

rkg

(Donadi Ramesh, J.)