Bijiya Bai vs Union Of India
2022 Latest Caselaw 2364 Chatt

                                     1


                                                                        N/AFR
            HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
             WRIT PETITION (SERVICE) NO. 2554 OF 2022
1.    Bijiya Bai, W/o Santram, aged about 32 years, working as Cook, Pre-
Middle School, Singanwahi, Block Doundi, District Balod (C.G.)
2.    Biruram, S/o Gihariram, aged about 59 years, working as Cook, Pre-
Middle School, Singanwahi, Block Doundi, District Balod (C.G.)
3.    Mahrin Bai, W/o Sitaram, aged about 44 years, working as Cook,
Pre-Middle School, Singanwahi, Block Doundi, District Balod (C.G.)
                                                              ... Petitioner(s)
                                  Versus
1.     Union of India, through the Secretary, Ministry of Human Resources
Development, Department of School Education and Literacy, Mid Day Meal
Division, Shasstri Bhawan, New Delhi.
2.     State of Chhattisgarh, through: Secretary, Department of School
Education, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, Distt. Raipur (CG)
3.     The Secretary, Government of Chhattisgarh, Department of Finance,
Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)
4.     The Director, Directorate of School Education, Shiksha Parisar,
Pension Bada, Raipur District Raipur (C.G.)
5.     The Block Education Officer, Doundi, District Balod (C.G.)
6.     Headmaster, Govt. Middle School, Singanwahi, Block Doundi, District
Balod (C.G.)                                                ... Respondent(s)

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shikhar Bhaktiyar, Adv., under instructions of Mr. B.P. Singh, Adv.

For Respondent(s)/UoI : Mr. Palash Tiwari, Advocate. For Respondent(s)/State : Mr. Ravi Bhagat, Dy. Govt. Adv.

Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order on Board [11/04/2022]

1. Learned Counsel for Petitioners submits that the Petitioners are

working on the post of Cook in the Govt. Pre-Middle School, Amadola,

Block Doundi, District Balod and they are being paid only Rs.1200/- per

month i.e., Rs.40/- per day, whereas, they are entitled for Rs.306.67/- per

day as per the minimum wages prescribed by the State Government vide

Schedule-C (Annexure P-2).

2. Learned Counsel for Petitioners in this regard relies upon the

Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of "State of

Punjab & Ors. Vs. Jagjit Singh & Ors.", decided on 26.10.2016, wherein

the Apex Court holding that the principle of 'equal pay for equal work' would

also be applicable to all the temporary employees, has held as under :-

"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".

3. Learned Dy. Govt. Advocate appearing for Respondent/State only

raises an apprehension that it needs to be verified if the Petitioners are at

present discharging the duties of Cook or not, as it has not been reflected in

the pleadings whether they are still continuing in service or not.

4. Be that as it may, the consideration of the claim of the Petitioners

would be subject to due verification of facts, both so far as the fact that

whether the Petitioners are still working under the concerned Respondent

and whether the Petitioners are being paid less than the minimum wages

prescribed.

5. In view of above, the Respondent No.2 is directed to consider the

representation of the Petitioners in the light of the Judgment of the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in Jagjit Singh (supra) and pass a reasoned Order in

accordance with law, on its own merits, within a period of 30 days from the

date of receipt of certified copy of this Order. Petitioners are at liberty to

make an additional representation, if they so want.

6. With the aforesaid, the Writ Petition stands disposed of.

Sd/-

(P. Sam Koshy) Judge /sharad/