Chattisgarh High Court
Nagshay vs Union Of India on 19 January, 2022
1
WPS No. 303 of 2022
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
WPS No. 303 of 2022
Nagshay S/o Ram Shay, Aged About 60 Years
R/o Narsutola, Gram Panchayat Kartutola,
P.S. And Tahsil Dondi Lohara, District Durg
(Now 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 Parisar,
Pension Bada, Raipur, District Raipur
Chhattisgarh.
4. Block Education Officer, Dondi Lohara,
District Balod Chhattisgarh.
5. Government Primary School, Narsutola,
Through The Headmaster Govt. Primary School,
Narsutola, Block Dondi Lohara, District
Balod Chhattisgarh.
2
WPS No. 303 of 2022
6. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary,
Department Of Finance, Mahanadi Bhawan,
Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, District Raipur
Chhattisgarh.
Respondents
For Petitioner : Mr. B.P. Singh, Advocate.
For UOI/Respondent No.1 : Ms. Supriya Upasane,
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, Narsutola 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
WPS No. 303 of 2022
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'
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. 303 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
