Kunj Bai vs Union Of India
2022 Latest Caselaw 3621 Chatt

                                        -1-

                                                                             NAFR
                HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
                         Writ Petition (S) No. 3567 of 2022
   1. Kunj Bai W/o Krishna Ram Aged About 47 Years Working As Cook,
        Government Pre Middle School Salhe , Block Doundi, District Balod
        Chhattisgarh., District : Balod, Chhattisgarh
                                                                 ---Petitioner(s)
                                      Versus
   1. Union Of India Through The Secretary, Ministry Of Human Resources
        Development, Department Of School Education And Literacy, Mid Day
        Meal Division, Shasstri, 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, 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.   Headmaster, Govt. Primary School, Salhe, Block - Doundi, District : Balod,
        Chhattisgarh.
                                                                ---Respondents

For Petitioner : Shri Anurag Khatri, Advocate. For Respondents/State : Shri RM Solapurkar, Govt. Advocate. For Respondent-UOI : Shri Kishan Lal Sahu, Advocate.

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

13.05.2022

1. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is

working on the post of Cook at government school 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. The petitioner

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 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 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/-

(P. Sam Koshy) Judge inder