Smt. Manki Bai vs Union Of India
2022 Latest Caselaw 2519 Chatt

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 2519 Chatt
Judgement Date : 19 April, 2022

Chattisgarh High Court

Smt. Manki Bai vs Union Of India on 19 April, 2022

                                          1




                                                                               N/AFR
               HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
                              WPS No. 2668 of 2022
     1. Smt. Manki Bai W/o Murari Ram, Aged About 33 Years Working As Cook,
        Pre-Middle School No.2, Kumharpara, Block-Doundi, District Balod
        Chhattisgarh.
     2. Smt. Manjulata W/o Rup Singh Aged About 38 Years Working As Cook,
        Pre-Middle School No. 2, Kumharpara, Block - Doundi, District Balod
        Chhattisgarh.
     3. Smt. Reshmi Bai W/o Ramesh Kumar Aged About 43 Years Working As
        Cook, Primary School No. 3, Nayapara, Block - Doundi, District Balod
        Chhattisgarh.
     4. Smt. Sevti Bai W/o Ghanshyam, Aged About 64 Years Working As Cook,
        Primary School-0 Bazarpara, Block-Doundi, District Balod Chhattisgarh.
                                                                    ---- 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 Education Officer, Doundi, District - Balod Chhattisgarh.
     6. Headmaster, Pre-Middle School No. 2, Kumharpara, Block-Doundi District -
        Balod Chhattisgarh.
     7. Headmaster, Primary School No.3, Nayapara, Block-Doundi, District Balod
        Chhattisgarh.
     8. Headmaster, Primary School-0 Bazarpara, Block-Doundi, District - Balod
        Chhattisgarh.                                     ... Respondent(s)

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mr. Shikhar Bhaktiyar, Adv., under instructions of Mr. B.P. Singh, Advocate For Respondent(s)/UoI : Mr. Tushar Dhar Diwan, 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 & 2 are working in Pre-

Middle School No. 2, Kumharpara, Block Doundi, District Balod. The

Petitioner no. 3 is working in the Primary School No. 3, Nayapara, Block-

Doundi District Balod. The Petitioner No. 4 is working in the Primary

School-0, Nayapara, Block Doundi, 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