Allahabad High Court
Jag Prasad vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. ... on 28 May, 2025
Author: Karunesh Singh Pawar
Bench: Karunesh Singh Pawar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:32052
Court No. - 18
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 6044 of 2025
Petitioner :- Jag Prasad
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Horticulture Lko. And 2 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Mohd. Ateeq Khan
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing counsel for the respondents.
2. The petition has been filed with the following prayer:-
"i. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the opposite party no.2 give the minimum of pay scale to the petitioner in term of the judgment and order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sabha Shankar Dube v. Divisional Forest Officer reported in AIR 2019 SC 220.
ii. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the opposite party no.2 to decide the representation of the petitioner dated 17.03.2025 in light of the judgment and order passed by Apex Court in Sabha Shankar Dube v. Divisional Forest Officer reported in AIR 2019 SC 220 send by the petitioner to the respondent no.2 contained as Annexure no.8 to this petition."
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been engaged as daily wager since January, 1991 by respondent no. 3. Since the date of appointment to till date, the petitioner is performing continuously as full time daily wager, however, the petitioner is being paid a meager sum of Rs. 11778/- per month. It is further submitted that the similarly situated daily wager after the appointment of the petitioner are getting Rs. 18000/- per month. The petitioner is being deprived of the minimum pay in an arbitrary manner.
4. It is next submitted that the Supreme Court in the case of Sabha Shanker Dubey Vs. Divisional Forest Officer and others: Civil Appeal No. 10956 of 2018, has laid down the law for payment of minimum pay scale to the employees who have been engaged on daily wage basis/ad hoc appointees, employees appointed on casual basis contractual employees and likewise while following the earlier verdict of the Supreme Court in State of Punjab & ors. vs. Jagjit Singh & ors. reported in [(2017) 1 SCC 148], the relevant paragraph Nos.9 to 13 are extracted below:-
"9. On a comprehensive consideration of the entire law on the subject of parity of pay scales on the principle of equal pay for equal work, this Court in Jagjit Singh (supra) held as follows:
"58. 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. Anyone, 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 dependants 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."
10. The issue that was considered by this Court in Jagjit Singh (supra) is whether temporary employees (daily wage employees, ad hoc appointees, 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 same duties which are discharged by those engaged on regular basis against the sanctioned posts.After considering several judgments including the judgments of this Court in Tilak Raj (supra) and Surjit Singh (supra), this Court 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.
11. In view of the judgment in Jagjit Singh (supra), we are unable to uphold the view of the High Court that the Appellants-herein are not entitled to be paid the minimum of the pay sales. We are not called upon to adjudicate on the rights of the Appellants relating to the regularization of their services. We are concerned only with the principle laid down by this Court initially in Putti Lal (supra) relating to persons who are similarly situated to the Appellants and later affirmed in Jagjit Singh (supra) that temporary employees are entitled to minimum of the pay scales as long as they continue in service.
12. We express no opinion on the contention of the State Government that the Appellants are not entitled to the reliefs as they are not working on Group ?D? posts and that some of them worked for short periods in projects.
13. For the aforementioned reasons, we allow these Appeals and set aside the judgments of the High Court holding that the Appellants are entitled to be paid the minimum of the pay scales applicable to regular employees working on the same posts. The State of Uttar Pradesh is directed to make payment of the minimum of pay scales to the Appellants with effect from 1 st December, 2018."
5. Learned Standing Counsel on the basis of written instructions has disputed the contents of the writ petition submitting that the petitioner has not continuously worked since 1991. In fact, he has worked only 744 days.
6. By this petition, the petitioner has prayed only for payment of minimum pay scale and has also prayed that decision may be taken on his representation. The term temporary employee has been considered by the Supreme Court in earlier case of Jagjit Singh (supra).
7. Accordingly, considering the arguments advanced by the parties, the petition is disposed of finally with a direction to the petitioner to submit a fresh representation to the respondent No.2 i.e. Director, Horticulture & Food Processing who will decide the same and shall pass a reasoned order strictly in view of the judgment of Sobha Shanker Dubey (supra) in case the same is applicable for the petitioner. The Representation shall be given within two weeks' from today. If the petitioner submit a fresh representation, the respondent No.2 shall decide the same within four weeks' thereafter, by passing a speaking and reasoned order.
Order Date :- 28.5.2025/R.C.
