Chattisgarh High Court
Smt Gomti Bai Mandavi vs Union Of India on 19 April, 2022
1
N/AFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPS No. 2669 of 2022
1. Smt Gomti Bai Mandavi W/o Yash Kumar Mandavi Aged About 35 Years
Working As Cook, Govt. Primary School, Maraskola, Block- Doundilohara,
District- Balod (C.G.)
2. Dukhuram Mandavi S/o Shri Ramnath Mandavi Aged About 40 Years
Working As Cook, Govt. Primary School, Mudpar, Block- Doundilohara,
District- Balod (C.G.)
3. Smt. Anju Bai W/o Ramnath Aged About 43 Years Working As Cook, Govt.
Primary School, Maraskola, Block- Doundilohara, District- Balod (C.G.)
---- Petitioner
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- The Secretary, Department Of School
Education, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, District- Raipur
(C.G.)
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 Doundilohara, District Balod, Chhattisgarh.
6. Headmaster Government Primary School, Mudpar, Block Doundilohara,
District Balod, Chhattisgarh.
7. Headmaster Government Primary School, Maraskola, Block Doundilohara,
District Balod, Chhattisgarh.
... Respondent(s)
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shikhar Bhaktiyar, Adv., under
instructions of Mr. B.P. Singh, Advocate
For Respondent(s)/UoI : Ms. Ayushi Agrawal, Advocate
For Respondent(s)/State : Mr. Suyash Dhar, P.L.
Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy
Order on Board
[19/04/2022]
1. Learned Counsel for Petitioners submits that the Petitioners are
working on the post of Cook. Petitioners No. 1 & 3 are working in the Govt.
Primary School, Maraskola, Block Doundilohara, District Balod. The
Petitioner No. 2 is working in the Govt. Primary School, Mudpar, Block
Doundilohara, District Balod. The petitioners 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 State Counsel 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
Jyoti
