Chattisgarh High Court
Dasharuram Markam vs Union Of India on 17 February, 2023
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT of CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Writ Petition (S) No. 5056 of 2022
• Dasharuram Markam S/o Sunher Aged About 37 Years Working As
Cook At Govt. Primary School Bandhapara Tensawa Block
Baderajpur R/o Village Tensawa Tahsil And Block Baderapur 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,
Mantrlaya, 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 Kondagoan, Office Of District
Education, Thana And Tahsil Kondagaon District Kondagoan
Chhattisgarh.
6. Block Education Officer, Block Office At Bade Rajpur District
Kondagaon Chhattisgarh.
-------Respondents
(cause title is taken from Case Information System)
For Petitioner : Mr. N.K. Malviya, Advocate
For Respondent No. 1 : None.
For Respondents-State : Mr. Anshuman Shrivastava, P.L.
Single Bench: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge
ORDER
17/02/2023
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 19.01.2022 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
19.01.2022.
2. Learned counsel representing respondent submits that he does 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 19.01.2022 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 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 respondents that he is 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 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.
Certified copy as per rules.
Sd/-
(Parth Prateem Sahu)
Judge
/P ā w ā n
