Chattisgarh High Court
Bala Ram Netam vs Union Of India on 19 December, 2022
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
WPS No. 4681 of 2022
• Bala Ram Netam S/o Faganu Ram Netam Aged About 41 Years
Working As Cook At Govt. Primary School Patripara Block Bade
Rajpur R/o Village Patripara Tahsil And Block Baderajpur District
Kondagaon Chhattisgarh.
---- Petitioner
Versus
1. Union Of India Through The Secretary Ministry Of Human
Resources Development Department Of School Education And
Literacy, Mid Day Meal Division, Shashtri Bhawan New Delhi.
2. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of
Education Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya Naya Raipur
Chhattisgarh.
3. The Secretary, Department Of Finance Mahanadi Bhawan,
Mantralay, Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.
4. The Director, School Education Directorate School Education,
Shiksha Parisar, Pension Bada, Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh.
5. District Education Officer, District Kondagaon, Office Of District
Education, Thana And Tahsil Kondagaon District Kondagaon
Chhattisgarh.
6. Block Education Officer Block Office At Bade Rajpur District
Kondagaon Chhattisgarh.
---- Respondents
For Petitioner : Mr. N.K. Malviya, Advocate
For Union of India : Mr. Keshav Gupta, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Ravi Bhagat, Govt. Advocate
Single Bench: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Parth Prateem Sahu
Order On Board
19.12.2022
1. Learned counsel for petitioner would submit that petitioner is
working as 'Cook' under Mid-Day Meal Scheme formulated by
respondent No.1 & 2. Petitioner is being paid Rs.40/- per day as
wages and not at the rate fixed by the Collector. Identical issue
came up for consideration in WPS No.291/2022 and Co-ordinate
Bench of this Court disposed of the same vide order dated
19.01.2022 directing respondent No.2 therein to consider and
decide representation to be submitted by petitioner therein
expeditiously within stipulated time. Learned counsel for petitioner
herein submits that this writ petition may also be disposed of in
terms of aforementioned order dated 19.1.2022.
2. Learned counsel representing respective respondents submits that
they do not have any objection to limited prayer made by learned
counsel for petitioner.
3. Heard learned counsel for parties and perused documents filed
along with writ petition.
4. WPS No.291/2022, parties being Johar Lal v. Union of India &
ors, came to be disposed of on 19.01.2022 by following order;-
"1. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that
the petitioner is working on the post of Cook in the
Government Middle School, Hitapathar and he is being
paid only Rs.1200/ per month i.e. Rs.40/ per day,
whereas, according to the schedule Annexure P/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
judgements 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 herein above. 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 herein-
above. 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 petitioner 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 petitioner is at liberty to make an additional
representation, if any.
3. With the aforesaid direction, the writ petition stands
finally disposed off."
5. Considering the facts and circumstances of case and submission of
learned counsel for respective respondents that they are not having
any objection to limited prayer of learned counsel for petitioner that
this writ petition may also be disposed of in terms of the order dated
19.01.2022 passed in WPS No.291/2022, this writ petition stands
disposed of permitting petitioner to submit representation before
respondent Nos.1 & 2 within three weeks from today, for redressal of
her grievance as projected in this writ petition. On making such
representation, respondent No.1 & 2 are directed to consider and
decide the same in accordance with law within an outer limit of three
months from the date of its receipt, keeping in mind decision of
Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of State of Punjab & ors v. Jagjit
Singh & ors, reported in (2017) 1 SCC 148.
Certified copy as per rules.
Sd/-
(Parth Prateem Sahu)
Judge
Saurabh
