Savitri Bai vs Union Of India
2022 Latest Caselaw 330 Chatt

                             1
                                           WPS No. 298 of 2022

                                                            NAFR

    HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

               WPS No. 298 of 2022

 Savitri Bai W/o Shyamlal Aged About 40 Years
  R/o      Village        Mangchua,        Gram      Panchayat
  Mangchua,       House    No.     30,    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 Parisar,
  Pension     Bada,       Raipur,        District­    Raipur,
  Chhattisgarh.

4. Block    Education        Officer,       Dondi      Lohara,
  District­ Balod, Chhattisgarh.

5. Government Primary School, Mangchua, Through
  The      Headmaster        Govt.        Primary      School,
  Mangchua,       Block     Dondi        Lohara,     District­
  Balod, Chhattisgarh
                                  2
                                               WPS No. 298 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 :­ 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, Mangchua and she 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, she 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. 298 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. 298 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