Bombay High Court
Rahul Brijlal Koli vs The State Of Maharashtra And ... on 10 March, 2021
Bench: S.V. Gangapurwala, Shrikant Dattatray Kulkarni
(1) WP-4495-2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.4495 OF 2021
GAJENDRA BANSILAL GIRASE AND OTHERS
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR ITS SECRETARY AND
OTHERS
AND
WRIT PETITION NO.4473 OF 2021
RAHUL BRIJLAL KOLI
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
AND
WRIT PETITION NO.4478 OF 2021
BHAGWANT DAGA WAGH
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
AND
WRIT PETITION NO.4479 OF 2021
SURESH SHRIPATI LAKAL
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR ITS SECRETARY AND
OTHERS
AND
WRIT PETITION NO.4480 OF 2021
RAJESH DHONDIRAM KAMBLE
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR ITS SECRETARY AND
OTHERS
AND
WRIT PETITION NO.4481 OF 2021
SATISH NARSING GAIKWAD
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
AND
WRIT PETITION NO.4482 OF 2021
::: Uploaded on - 16/03/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2021 03:22:15 :::
(2) WP-4495-2021
SAYYED AKHEEL SAYYAD TALEED
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
AND
WRIT PETITION NO.4483 OF 2021
PADMAKAR KONDIBA RAHIRE AND OTHERS
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR ITS SECRETARY AND
OTHERS
AND
WRIT PETITION NO.4484 OF 2021
SHIVSHANKAR MOTIRAM WAIPANKAR AND ANOTHER
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
AND
WRIT PETITION NO.4486 OF 2021
MANOJ KAILASH GAVIT AND OTHERS
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
AND
WRIT PETITION NO.4487 OF 2021
SANTOSH PRAKASH MORE
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
AND
WRIT PETITION NO.4488 OF 2021
LAXMAN RAOSAHEB KADAM
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
AND
WRIT PETITION NO.4489 OF 2021
NARESH PRAKASHRAO DESHMUKH AND ANOTHER
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR ITS SECRETARY AND
OHTERS
::: Uploaded on - 16/03/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2021 03:22:15 :::
(3) WP-4495-2021
AND
WRIT PETITION NO.4490 OF 2021
SHIVGIR VITTHAL GIRI AND OTHERS
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
AND
WRIT PETITION NO.4491 OF 2021
AKASH PIRAJI KAMBLE
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
AND
WRIT PETITION NO.4492 OF 2021
GAJANAN RAGHUNATH BARI
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR ITS SECRETARY AND
OTHERS
AND
WRIT PETITION NO.4493 OF 2021
TUKARAM RAMRAO PARSE
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR ITS SECRETARY AND
OTHERS
AND
WRIT PETITION NO.4494 OF 2021
ARUN UDDHAV MADKE AND OTHERS
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR ITS SECRETARY AND
OTHERS
AND
WRIT PETITION NO.4496 OF 2021
BHARAT ANANDA PATIL AND OTHERS
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR ITS SECRETARY AND
OTHERS
::: Uploaded on - 16/03/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2021 03:22:15 :::
(4) WP-4495-2021
AND
WRIT PETITION NO.4497 OF 2021
SANTOSH HARIDAS SOLANKE AND OTHERS
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
AND
WRIT PETITION NO.4498 OF 2021
SANJAY SHIVRAM GHULE AND ANOTHER
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR ITS SECRETARY AND
OTHERS
AND
WRIT PETITION NO.4499 OF 2021
GANESH PANDIT BETKAR AND OTHERS
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
AND
WRIT PETITION NO.4500 OF 2021
GOVIND BHARAT SHINDE AND OTHERS
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
AND
WRIT PETITION NO.4501 OF 2021
DNYANESHWAR ASARAM DHURVDE
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
AND
WRIT PETITION NO.4084 OF 2021
RAJARAM SOPAN PACHPANDE
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
...
Mr. Pramod A. Kulkarni, Advocate for the
Petitioners.
Mr. S. K. Tambe and Mrs. P. V. Diggikar, AGP for
::: Uploaded on - 16/03/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2021 03:22:15 :::
(5) WP-4495-2021
Respondents-State in respective Writ Petitions.
Mr. M. S. Sonawane, Advocate for Respondent Nos.4
and 5 in WP/4084/2021.
...
CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA &
SHRIKANT D. KULKARNI, JJ.
DATED : 10th MARCH, 2021.
PER COURT:-
1. Learned counsel for the petitioners seeks
leave to amend and claim relief on the basis of
equal pay for equal work. Leave granted.
2. The petitioners in these petitions seek
relief of regularization and equal wages for equal
work.
3. As far as the relief of regularization is
concerned, reliance is placed on the order passed
by this Court at Principal Seat in Writ Petition
No.10260/2019 dated 03.09.2019. The Division Bench
at the principal seat, in the said matter, passed
following order:
"In the light of the fact that the concerned
persons are looking into the grievance of
the petitioners, met and made appropriate
recommendations and no final decision is
taken as yet, this writ petition can be
disposed and is accordingly disposed of by
keeping open all the contentions and to be
raised in the event the grievances of the
petitioners still survive."
4. As far as grievance of the petitioners of
equal pay for equal work is concerned, the
petitioners placed reliance on the order dated
(6) WP-4495-2021
08.12.2020 passed by the Division Bench at
Principal Seat in Writ Petition St. No. 92250/2020
with connected writ petitions and the judgment and
order of this Court at Nagpur Bench in Writ
Petition No. 2247/2014, dated 20th November, 2019.
The Division Bench at the Principal Seat, relying
upon the judgment of Division Bench of Nagpur
Bench, passed the following order on 08.12.2020 in
Writ Petition St. No. 92250/2020 with connected
writ petitions.
"5. This Court, in the judgment relied on behalf of
the petitioners, in the matter of Dhiraj S.
Wankhede (supra) has held:
"9. The other relief claimed by the
petitioners is about pay parity with the
regular drivers in Class-III category. In
this regard the law has been settled by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of
Punjab and others...Versus...Jagjit Singh and
others , reported in (2017 )1 SCC 148. 10.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that no
artificial parameters can be devised to deny
the fruits of labour when an employee
performs the same work as another employee.
The Hon'ble Apex Court has further held that
no artificial distinction can be made between
such two employees, whereby one is given
higher salary and another is paid lower
salary. Relevant observations of the Hon'ble
Apex Court appearing in paragraph no.58 of
the judgment are reproduced as below :-
"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
(7) WP-4495-2021
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 dependents would surfer
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."
11. It is clear that the Hon'ble Supreme
Court has held that when one employee
discharges/performs same work as another
employee, there cannot be any distinction
between the two employees so far as the
application of the pay scale to both of them
is concerned. The Hon'ble Apex Court has
further held that all the temporary employees
who are performing
similar work as the regular employees 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. This relief
would also have to be granted to all the
petitioners as there is no dispute that their
work is similar to the work of the regular
drivers."
6. The fact that the petitioners in above
referred judgment were contractual employees
is not disputed. We are, therefore, of the
opinion that the issue involved in all these
petitions is covered by view taken by this
Court in its judgment dated 20.11.2019 in
above referred writ petition. Accordingly,
the following order is passed.
a. The petitioners be paid wages at the
(8) WP-4495-2021
minimum of the pay scale at the lowest grade,
in the regular pay scale extended to the
regular employees holding the same post with
effect from the date of the petition.
b. The respondent No.5 is directed to comply
with this order within six months from today.
c. No order as to costs."
5. In view of the consistent view taken at
the Principal Seat and at Nagpur Bench, we follow
the same course and pass following order:
O R D E R
(a) The petitioners be paid wages at the
minimum of the pay scale at the lowest
grade, in the regular pay scale extended to
the regular employees holding the same post
with effect from the date of the petition.
(b) The respondent No.5 is directed to comply
with this order within six months from
today.
6. With the aforesaid observation and
directions, writ petitions are disposed of. No
costs.
(SHRIKANT D. KULKARNI) (S. V. GANGAPURWALA)
JUDGE JUDGE
Devendra/March-2021
