Smt. Shivkumari Yadav vs Union Of India
2022 Latest Caselaw 3312 Chatt

                                          -1-


                                                                            NAFR
               HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
                        Writ Petition (S) No. 3201 of 2022

   1. Smt. Shivkumari Yadav D/o Rambadan Yadav Aged About 44 Years
      Working As A Cook At Govt. Middle School Kaskela, Block Bhaiyathan,,
      District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh
   2. Smt. Suruchi Yadav W/o Rambhajan Yadav Aged About 52 Years Working
      As A Cook At Govt. Primary School Kaskela, Block - Bhaiyathan,, District :
      Surajpur, Chhattisgarh.
                                                                 ---Petitioner(s)
                                      Versus
   1. Union of India Food Secretary Ministry of Women Resource Development,
      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, New Raipur District - Raipur Chhattisgarh
   3. The Director, Directorate Of School Education, Indrawati Bhawan New
      Raipur,, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
   4. The Block Education Officer, Bhaiyathan Block - Bhaiyathan,, District :
      Surajpur, Chhattisgarh
   5. The Headmaster, Govt. Middle School Kaskela, Block - Bhaiyathan,,
      District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh
   6. The Headmaster, Govt. Primary School Kaskela, Block-Bhaiyathan,,
      District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh
                                                                ---Respondents

For Petitioners : Shri AN Pandey, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Shri Kunal Das, Panel Lawyer. For Respondent No.1 : Ms. Anmol Sharma, Advocate.

Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order on Board

06.05.2022

1. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are

working on the post of Cook at Govt. Middle School Kaskela and Govt.

Primay School Kaskela, Block Bhaiyathan and they are 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, 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' has also been extended to temporary employees (differently described as workcharge, 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 directed to consider the

representation 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.

3. With the aforesaid direction, the writ petition stands finally disposed off.

Sd/-

(P. Sam Koshy) Judge inder