Smt Sarika Turkane vs Union Of India
2022 Latest Caselaw 2457 Chatt

                                           1


                                                                                NAFR

            HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
                            WPS No. 2579 of 2022
1. Smt Sarika Turkane W/o Devkumar, Aged About 36 Years Working As Cook,
   Pre- Middle School, Chipra, Block Doundi, District Balod Chhattisgarh.

2. Shyam Kumar S/o Mansharam Aged About 40 Years Working As Cook, Pre-
   Middle School, Chipra, Block-Doundi, District Balod Chhattisgarh. 2011

3. Smt. Nageshwari W/o Nirmal, Aged About 34 Years Working As Cook,boys
   Primary School, Chipra, Block-Doundi, District Balod Chhattisgarh. 2011

4. Shishupal S/o Prem Singh Aged About 46 Years Working As Cook,primary
   School, Tendutola, Block-Doundi, District Balod Chhattisgarh. 2011

5. Smt. Lata Bai W/o Narottam Aged About 43 Years Working As Cook, Pre-Middle
   School, Chipra, Block-Doundi, District Balod Chhattisgarh. 2008

6. Manglin Bai W/o Sadaram, Aged About 53 Years Working As Cook, Primary
   School, Chipra, Block-Doundi, District Balod Chhattisgarh. 2999

                                                                     ---- Petitioners

                                    Versus

1. Union Of India 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 The Secretary, Department Of School
   Education, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, District Raipur
   Chhattisgarh.

3. The Secretary, Government Of Chhattisgarh, Department Of Finance, Mahanadi
   Bhawan, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

4. The Director, Directorate Of School Education, Shiksha Parisar, Pension Bada,
   Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

5. The Block Educaiton Officer, Doundi, District Balod Chhattisgarh.

6. Headmaster, Pre Middle School, Chipra, Block Doundi, District Balod
   Chhattisgarh.

7. Hadmaster, Primary School, Tendutola, Block Doundi, District Balod
   Chhattisgarh.

8. Headmaster, Primary School Tendutola, Block Doundi, District Balod
   Chhattisgarh.
                                                         2


          9. Headmaster, Primary School, Chipra, Block Doundi, District Balod Chhattisgarh.

                                                                                     ---- Respondents

For Petitioner : Mr. Shikhar Bakhtiyar, Advocate For State : Mr. Suyash Dhar, PL For Union Of India : Mr. Tushar Dhar Diwan, Advocate

Hon'ble Mr. Justice P. Sam Koshy Order on Board

13/04/2022

1. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are working

on the post of Cook in the Pre Middle School, Chipra, Boys Primary School,

Chipra, Primary School, Tendutola, Block Doundi and Primary School, Chipra

and they are being paid only Rs.1200/ per month i.e. Rs.40/ per day,whereas,

according to the schedule AnnexureP/2, minimum wages prescribed by the

Chhattisgarh Minimum Wage, he is entitled for Rs.306.67/ per day. He would

rely upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of State of Punjab &

Ors. vs. Jagjit Singh & Ors.,decided on 26th October, 2016 in which the

Supreme Court has held that the principle of equal pay for equal work will also

applicable to all the temporary employees and has been 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 workcharge, daily-

wage, casual adhoc,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".

2. In view of the above, respondent No.2 is directed to consider the representation

of the petitioners in the light of aforesaid judgment of the Supreme Court within

30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order and to pass a

reasoned order in accordance with law on its own merit. The petitioners are at

liberty to make an additional representation, if any.

3. With the aforesaid direction, the writ petition stands finally disposed off.

Sd/-

(P. Sam Koshy) Judge Rohit