Chattisgarh High Court
Smt. Milapa Bai vs Union Of India on 11 February, 2022
1
WPS No. 880 of 2022
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
WPS No. 880 of 2022
1. Fagwa Ram Yadav S/o Late Pardeshi Ram Yadav,
Aged About 56 Years, R/o Village Durgitola,
Tehsil Dondi Lohara, District Balod
Chhattisgarh.
2. Smt. Dipika Thakur W/o Pawan Kumar Thakur,
Aged About 30 Years, R/o Village Durgitola,
Tehsil Dondi Lohara, District Balod
Chhattisgarh.
Petitioners
Versus
1. Union Of India Through Secretary Ministry Of
Human Resources Development, Department Of
School Education And Literacy, Mid Day Meal
Division, Shastri Bhawan New Delhi.
2. State Of Chhattisgarh, Through The
Secretary, Department Of Education, Mahanadi
Bhawan, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, District
Raipur Chhattisgarh.
3. Directorate, School Education Through The
Director School Education, Shiksha Parishar,
Pension Bada, Raipur District Raipur
Chhattisgarh.
4. Block Education Officer, Dondi Lohara,
District Balod Chhattisgarh.
2
WPS No. 880 of 2022
5. Aashram Shala, Durgitola Block Dondi Lohara
District Balod Chhattisgarh.
6. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary
Department Of Finance, Mahanadi Bhawan,
Mantralaya Naya Raipur, District Raipur
Chhattisgarh.
Respondents
WPS No. 886 of 2022
Shri Malkham Ravate S/o Jhaggeram Ravte,
Aged About 42 Years, R/o Village Chipra,
Tehsil Dondi Lohara District Balod
Chhattisgarh.
Petitioner
Versus
1. Union Of India, Through Secretary Ministry
Of Human Resources Development, Department
Of School Education And Literacy, Mid Day
Meal Division, Shastri Bhawan New Delhi.
2. State Of Chhattisgarh, Through The
Secretary, Department Of Education, Mahanadi
Bhawan, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, District
Raipur Chhattisgarh.
3. Directorate, School Education Through The
Director School Education, Shiksha Parishar,
Pension Bada, Raipur District Raipur
Chhattisgarh.
4. Block Education Officer, Dondi Lohara,
WPS No. 880 of 2022
District Balod Chhattisgarh.
5. Government Primary School Chipra, Block
Dondi Lohara, District Balod Chhattisgarh.
6. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary
Department Of Finance, Mahanadi Bhawan,
Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, District Raipur
Chhattisgarh.
Respondents
WPS No. 927 of 2022
Smt. Milapa Bai D/o Omprakash Hidco, Aged
About 30 Years, R/o Village Pidiyal, Block
Dondi Lohara, District Balod, Chhattisgarh.
Petitioner
Versus
1. Union Of India Through Secretary Ministry Of
Human Resources Development, Department Of
School Education And Literacy, Mid Day Meal
Division, Shastri Bhawan New Delhi.
2. State Of Chhattisgarh, Through The
Secretary, Department Of Education, Mahanadi
Bhawan, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, District
Raipur Chhattisgarh.
3. Directorate, School Education Through The
Director School Education, Shiksha Parishar,
Pension Bada, Raipur District Raipur
Chhattisgarh.
WPS No. 880 of 2022
4. Block Education Officer, Dondi Lohara,
District Baloda Chhattisgarh.
5. Government Primary School, Pidiyal Block
Dondi Lohara, District Balod Chhattisgarh.
6. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary
Department Of Finance, Mahnadi Bhawan,
Mantralaya Naya Raipur District Raipur
Chahttisgarh.
Respondents
For Petitioners :Mr. Sudhanshu Kumar Singh, Adv.
For UOI : Ms. Anuja Sharma, Adv.
For State : Mr. Ravi Bhagat, Dy. G.A.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal
Order On Board
(Through Video Conferencing)
11/02/2022
1. Since common question of law and fact is
involved in these writ petitions, they were
clubbed together and heard together and are
being disposed off by this common order.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners would
submit that the petitioners are working on
the post of Cook under the scheme of mid day
meal under Block Dondi Lohara in the School,
respondent No.5, and they are being paid
WPS No. 880 of 2022
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, they are
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'
WPS No. 880 of 2022
has also been extended to temporary
employees (differently described as work
charge, dailywage, 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".
3. In view of the above, respondent No.2 is
directed to consider the representations 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.
4. With the aforesaid direction, the writ
petitions stand finally disposed off. No
order as to cost(s).
Sd/
(Sanjay K. Agrawal)
Judge
Ankit
