Chattisgarh High Court
Smt. Hemin Bai Khare vs Union Of India on 17 October, 2022
-1-
NAFR
HIGH COURT of CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
WPS No. 6640 of 2022
Smt. Hemin Bai Khare W/o Vinod Khare Aged About 30 Years
Working As Cook At Government Primary School Pachpedi Block And
Tahsil Khairagarh, R/o Village Pachpedi Tahsil Khairagarh-
Chuikhadan- Gandai, 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, Mantralay,
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 Khairagarh- Chuikhadan- Gandai,
District : Khairagarh-Chhuikhadan-Gandai, Chhattisgarh
6. Block Education Officer Block Office At Khairagarh, District :
Khairagarh-Chhuikhadan-Gandai, Chhattisgarh
---- Respondents
______________________________________________________________
For Petitioner : Mr. N.K. Malviya, Advocate
For Union of India : Mr. Rishabh Dev Singh, Advocate
For State : Mr. Ravi Bhagat, Dy. Govt. Advocate
S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge
Order On Board
17/10/2022
Heard.
1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is
working as Cook for preparing Mid-day Meal under Mid Day
Meal Scheme formulated by respondents No. 1 & 2 . Petitioner
is being paid Rs.40/- per day as wages and not the wages fixed
by the Collector. He submits that identical issue came up for
consideration WPS No.291 of 2022 wherein, Coordinate Bench
of this Court disposed of the writ petition directing respondents
No. 2 therein to consider the representation to be submitted by
the petitioner expeditiously within specified time. He submits that
similar order may also be passed in this case.
2. Learned counsel for the respective respondents submits that
they are having no objection to the limited prayer made by
learned counsel for the petitioner.
3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
documents placed on record.
4. In Writ Petition No.291 of 2022 (Johar Lal Vs. Union of India &
Ors.) decided on 19.01.2022, it was observed as under :
"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 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. As the counsel for the respondents has not raised any objection
to the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner of passing
similar order as passed in WPS No.291 of 2022, this writ petition
is also disposed of in similar terms.
6. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of permitting the
petitioner to submit a representation before respondents No.1 &
2 within a period of 3 weeks from today and if such
representation is moved by the petitioner, the same shall be
considered and decided expeditiously by respondents No. 1 & 2,
preferably within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of
copy of this order.
7. Certified copy as per rules.
Sd/------/--/-
(Parth Prateem Sahu)
Judge
Praveen
