Chattisgarh High Court
Siyaram Markam vs Union Of India on 16 November, 2022
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
WPS No. 7468 of 2022
• Siyaram Markam S/o Paklu Ram Markam Aged About 33 Years
Working As Cook At Govt. Primary School Hirrapara (Mageda)
Block And Tah Makadi R/o Village Hirrapara (Mageda), Block
And Tahsil Makadi, District : Kondagaon, 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, Shashtri Bhawan New Delhi.
2. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of
Education Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya Naya Raipur, District
: Raipur, Chhattisgarh
3. The Secretary Department Of Finance Mahanadi Bhawan,
Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
4. The Director School Education Directorate School Education,
Shiksha Parisar, Pension Bada Raipur, District Raipur,
Chhattisgarh
5. District Education Officer District- Kondagaon, Office Of District
Education, Thana And Tahsil Kondagaon, District Kondagaon,
Chhattisgarh
6. Block Education Officer Block Office At Makadi District
Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh
.....Respondents
For Petitioner : Mr. N.K. Malviya, Advocate
For Union of India : Ms. Anuja Sharma, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Ravi Bhagat, Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Parth Prateem Sahu
Order On Board
16/11/2022
1. Learned counsel for petitioner would submit that petitioner is
working as 'Cook' under Mid-Day Meal Scheme formulated by
respondent No.1 & 2. Petitioner is being paid Rs.40/- per day
as wages and not at the rate fixed by the Collector. Identical
issue came up for consideration in WPS No.291/2022 and Co-
ordinate Bench of this Court disposed of the same vide order
dated 19.1.2022 directing respondent No.2 therein to consider
and decide representation to be submitted by petitioner therein
expeditiously within stipulated time. Learned counsel for
petitioner herein submits that this writ petition may also be
disposed of in terms of aforementioned order dated 19.1.2022.
2. Learned counsel representing respective respondents submit
that they do not have any objection to limited prayer made by
learned counsel for petitioner.
3. Heard learned counsel for parties and perused documents filed
along with writ petition.
4. WPS No.291/2022, parties being Johar Lal v. Union of India &
ors, came to be disposed of on 19.1.2022 by following order;-
"1. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit
that the petitioner is working on the post of Cook in
the Government Middle School, Hitapathar 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 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 judgements 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 herein above. 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 herein-
above. 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."
5. Considering the facts and circumstances of case and
submission of learned counsel for respective respondents that
they are not having any objection to limited prayer of learned
counsel for petitioner that this writ petition may also be
disposed of in terms of the order dated 19.1.2022 passed in
WPS No.291/2022, this writ petition stands disposed of
permitting petitioner to submit representation before
respondent Nos.1 & 2 within three weeks from today, for
redressal of his grievance as projected in this writ petition. On
making such representation, respondent No.1 & 2 are directed
to consider and decide the same in accordance with law within
an outer limit of three months from the date of its receipt,
keeping in mind decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of
State of Punjab & ors v. Jagjit Singh & ors, reported in
(2017) 1 SCC 148.
6. Certified copy as per rules.
Sd/-
(Parth Prateem Sahu)
Judge
roshan/-
