Chattisgarh High Court
Bimla Yadav vs Union Of India on 17 November, 2022
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
WPS No. 7590 of 2022
• Bimla Yadav S/o Karsingh Yadav Aged About 33 Years Working As Cook At Govt.
Primary School Chichadi Block And Tahsil Farasgaon R/o Village Chichadi Block
And Tahsil Farasgaon, District : Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh
---- Petitioner
Versus
1. Union Of India Through The Secretary Ministry Of Human Resources
Developoment, 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 Farasgaon, District : Kondagaon,
Chhattisgarh
---- Respondents
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For Petitioner : Shri NK Malviya, Advocate
For Union of India : Shri Roop Ram Naik, Advocate
For State Shri Shubham Verma, PL
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu
Order on Board
17.11.2022
1. Learned counsel for petitioner would submit that petitioner is working as
'Cook' under Mid-Day Meal Scheme formulated by respondents-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-291 of 2022 and Co-ordinate
Bench of this Court disposed of the same vide order dated 19.01.2022 directing
respondent-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 19.01.2022.
Wps 7590 of 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-291 of 2022, parties being Johar Lal v. Union of India & ors, came to
be disposed of on 19.01.2022 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 adhoc, 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
Wps 7590 of 2022
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 19.01.2022 passed in WPS-291 of 2022,
this writ petition stands disposed of permitting petitioner to submit representation
before respondents-1 & 2 within three weeks from today, for redressal of his/her
grievance as projected in this writ petition. On making such representation,
respondents- 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
padma
