Sukhnandan Salame vs Union Of India
2022 Latest Caselaw 327 Chatt

                            1
                                         WPS No. 311 of 2022

                                                        NAFR

    HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                WPS No. 311 of 2022

 Sukhnandan Salame S/o Ramratan Salame Aged
  About 32 Years R/o Village Hitapathar Block
  Dondi Lohara District Balod (C.G.)

                                          ­­­­ 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 C.G.

3. Directorate,    School       Education     Through    The
  Director School Education, Shiksha Parisar,
  Pension Bada, Raipur, District Raipur C.G.

4. Block    Education    Officer,         Dondi      Lohara,
  District Balod C.G.

5. Government     Primary       School     Balak     Ashram,
  Hitapathar      Through       The    Headmaster      Govt,
  Primary     School,    Hitapathar          Block     Dondi
  Lohara District Balod C.G.

6. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary,
                                  2
                                              WPS No. 311 of 2022

    Department       Of     Finance,         Mahanadi    Bhawan,
    Mantralaya Naya Raipur District Raipur C.G.

                                              ­­­­ Respondents

For Petitioner :­ Mr. B.P. Singh, Advocate. For UOI/Respondent No.1 :­ Mr. Tushar Diwan, Advocate.

For State/Respondents No.2 to 6 :­ Ms. Sunita Jain, G.A.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order On Board (Through Video Conferencing)

19/01/2022

1. Learned counsel for the petitioner would

submit that the petitioner is working on the

post of Cook in the Government Primary

School Balak Ashram, 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

WPS No. 311 of 2022

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 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".

2. In view of the above, respondent No.2 is

WPS No. 311 of 2022

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.

Sd/­ (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Ankit