Kalawati vs Union Of India
2022 Latest Caselaw 3691 Chatt

                                      -1-




                                                                            NAFR
            HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
                          W.P.(S) No. 3669 of 2022

   1. Kalawati W/o Shreeram Aged About 34 Years Posted As Cook, Govt.
      Primary School Danitola Block - Doundi, District : Balod, Chhattisgarh.
   2. Rajmat Bai W/o Shri Rohit Ram Aged About 32 Years Posted As Cook,
      Govt. Primary School Danitola Block - Doundi, District : Balod,
      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, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi.
   2. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of School
      Education, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, District :
      Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
   3. The Secretary, Government Of Chhattisgarh, Department Of Finance,
      Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, District : Raipur,
      Chhattisgarh.
   4. The Director, Directorate Of School Education, Shiksha Parisar, Pension
      Bada, Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
   5. The Block Education Officer, Doundi, District : Balod, Chhattisgarh
   6. Government Primary School Danitola Through The Headmaster, Govt.
      Primary School, Danitola Block - Doundi, District : Balod, Chhattisgarh

                                                             ---- Respondents

For the Petitioners : Shri Vidya Bhushan Soni, Advocate on behalf of Shri B.P. Singh, Advocate.

For Respondent No.1 : Shri Sumit Singh, Advocate. For Respondents No.2 to 6/State : Shri R.M. Solapurkar, G.A.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant Order on Board 13-06-2022

Heard.

1. This petition has been brought praying for issuance of appropriate

direction to the respondent authorities to provide minimum wages to the

petitioners in accordance with the Schedule (Annexure-P/2).

2. It is submitted by counsel for the petitioners that petitioner No.1 was

appointed as cook on 10.12.2011 and petitioner No.2 was appointed as

cook on 11.8.2008 in Government School, Danitola, for which they were

receiving the wages of Rs.40/- per day i.e. Rs.1,200/- per month. The

minimum wages have been prescribed by the State of Chhattisgarh,

which is 306.67 per day only. Hence, the petitioners are before this

Court praying for grant of minimum wages in accordance with the

Schedule of the State Government.

3. Shri Sumit Singh, Advocate representing for respondent No.1/ Union of

India opposes the submissions and similarly, learned State counsel

representing for respondents No.2 to 6 also opposes the submissions

made on behalf of the petitioners.

4. Considered on the submissions. In the case of State of Punjab & Ors.

vs. Jagjit Singh and 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 it was observed

in paragraph 54, which is as follows:-

"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, daily-wage, casual ad-hoc, 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".

5. In view of the said pronouncement of the Supreme Court, this petition is

disposed off. The petitioners are granted liberty to file a fresh

representation before the respondent authorities and respondent No.2 is

directed to consider on this representation in light of the judgment of the

Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab & Ors. vs. Jagjit Singh

and Ors. (supra) within a time limit of 30 days from the date of receipt of

copy of this order. Respondent No.2 is expected to pass a reasoned

order in accordance with law, on its own merits.

6. With the aforesaid observations, this petition is disposed of.

Sd/-

(Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant) Judge Nimmi