Jharkhand High Court
Amit Kumar Sharma vs The State Of Jharkhand Through The ... on 23 September, 2024
Author: Ambuj Nath
Bench: Ambuj Nath
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(S) No. 6074 of 2013
Amit Kumar Sharma, son of Shri Kundu Prasad Sharma, resident of
Mohalla- Baliharpur, P.O. and P.S.- Pakur, District - Pakur.
... Petitioner
- Versus -
1. The State of Jharkhand through the Secretary / Principal Secretary,
Rural Development Department, having office at Project Building, P.O.
and P.S.-Dhurwa, Towan and District- Ranchi.
2. The Deputy Commissioner, Pakur, P.O., P.S. & District- Pakur.
3. The Block Development Officer cum Chief Block Programme Officer,
Amrapara, P.O., P.S.- Amrapara, District- Pakur. ... Respondents
------
CORAM: - HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMBUJ NATH
-----
For the Petitioner : Mr. Manoj Tandan, Advocate
: Mr. Siddharth Ranjan, Advocate
: Ms. Neha Bhardwaj, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. Om Prakash Tiwari, G.P.-III
.............
07/23.09.2024
Heard the parties.
2. The petitioner Amit Kumar Sharma has filed this writ application
for issuance of direction upon the respondents for payment of honorarium/
salary strictly as per the resolution of Finance Department, Government of
Jharkhand dated 20.01.2012 alongwith Dearness Allowance in accordance
with the resolution of Finance Department of Government of Jhakhand
dated 20.04.2013 and other consequential benefits.
3. The case of the petitioner is that he has been working as
Computer Operator in the office of Block Development Officer-cum-
Chief Block Programme Officer, Amrapara in the district of Pakur from
17.04.2010. It is further case of the petitioner is that other Computer
Operators who are working on the same post and performing the same
work are getting consolidated amount of Rs.10,500/- with 72% Dearness
Allowance, where as petitioner is being paid Rs.203/- per day.
4. Reliance has been placed upon decision of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court rendered in the case of State of Punjab and Others Vs. Jagjit
Singh and Others as reported in (2017) 1 SCC 148, wherein the Hon'ble
Supreme Court has held in paragraph Nos.57 and 58 which are as
follows.:-
"57. 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 the Supreme Court,
and constitutes law declared by the Supreme 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 para 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 para 44 hereinabove. The above legal position
which has been repeatedly declared, is being reiterated by us, yet
again.
58. In our considered view, it is fallacious to determine artificial
parameters to deny fruits of labour. An employee engaged for the same
work, cannot be paid less than another, who performs the same duties
and responsibilities. Certainly not, in a welfare state. Such an action
besides being demeaning, strikes at the very foundation of human
dignity. Anyone, who is compelled to work at a lesser wage, does not do
so voluntarily. He does so to provide food and shelter to his family, at
the cost of his self respect and dignity, at the cost of his self worth, and
at the cost of his integrity. For he knows that his dependents would
suffer immensely, if he does not accept the lesser wage. Any act of
paying less wages as compared to others similarly situate constitutes an
act of exploitative enslavement, emerging out of a domineering
position. Undoubtedly, the action is oppressive, suppressive and
coercive, as it compels involuntary subjugation."
5. Learned counsel for the respondents-State submitted that those
who are getting payment of Rs.10,500/- alongwith 72% Dearness
Allowance per month are working on contractual basis while the
petitioner is rendering his service through a contractor as daily wager.
6. Now, it is settled principle of law of 'equal pay for equal work'.
This principle has also been extended to temporary employees (differently
described as work-charge, daily wage, casual, ad-hoc, contractual and the
like).
7. As decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is fallacious to
determine artificial parameters to deny fruits of labour to the persons who
are discharging the same duties, but getting different wages.
8. In view of the discussions made above, the petitioner is also
entitled to get 'equal pay for equal work' which the other computer
operators are getting, as they are rendering the same work.
9. Accordingly, this writ application is allowed. The respondents are
directed to provide the same wages to the petitioner, which is being paid
to the other computer operator who are working on contractual basis.
10. Pending I.A. also stands disposed of.
(Ambuj Nath, J.)
Jay/-
