Uttarakhand High Court
SPA/252/2021 on 9 August, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI RAGHVENDRA SINGH CHAUHAN
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR VERMA
SPECIAL APPEAL NO. 252 OF 2021
9th August, 2021
Between:
State of Uttarakhand and others ...... Appellants
and
Vinod Kumar ...... Respondent
Counsel for the appellants : Mr. B.S. Parihar, learned Standing
Counsel
Counsel for the respondent : Mr. Amar Murti Shukla, learned
counsel
The Court made the following:
JUDGMENT: (per Hon'ble The Chief Justice Sri Raghvendra Singh Chauhan)
The State of Uttarakhand has challenged the
legality of the order dated 05.10.2020, passed by
learned Single Judge, in Writ Petition (S/S) No. 1153 of
2020, whereby the learned Single Judge has directed the
State to pay minimum of the pay scale to the petitioner,
as an interim measure, during the pendency of the writ
petition.
2
2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the
petitioner was appointed as a part-time Sweeper in the
office of the Executive Engineer, Department of
Irrigation, Haldwani Division, Haldwani (respondent No.
4 herein) on 06.09.2006 w.e.f. 01.07.2006. He was
appointed on a consolidated wages of Rs.500/- per
month. Since then, he is continuously working in the
office of the respondent No. 4. Therefore, the petitioner
has filed a writ petition for seeking a payment of the
minimum of the pay scale applicable to the post of
Sweeper (Class IV employee) on the basis of principle of
'Equal Pay for Equal Work'. By way of an interim order,
the learned Single Judge directed the State as
aforementioned. Hence, this appeal before this Court.
3. Mr. B.S. Parihar, the learned Standing Counsel
for the State, submits that according to the appointment
letter dated 06.09.2006, the petitioner was appointed as
a part-time employee. Therefore, a part-time employee
cannot claim Equal Pay for Equal Work vis-à-vis a full
time employee. Hence, the learned Single Judge is
unjustified in directing, even as an interim measure, that
the minimum of the pay scale of a regular employee
should be paid to the petitioner.
3
4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the
petitioner-respondent, Mr. Amar Murti Shukla, submits
that although the petitioner was appointed as a part-
time employee by order dated 06.09.2006, but the letter
dated 25.07.2015 clearly indicates that the petitioner
was discharging his duties for eight hours. Therefore, he
was working as a regular employee would work. As
such, the petitioner was entitled to claim Equal Pay for
Equal Work. Hence, the learned counsel has supported
the impugned order.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
6. Even if the letter dated 25.07.2015 does
indicate and does claim that the petitioner was working
for eight hours, even then, the said letter is contrary to
the appointment letter dated 06.09.2006. According to
the appointment letter dated 06.09.2006, the petitioner
was appointed as a part-time Sweeper. Even, in the writ
petition, the petitioner claims that he was appointed as a
part-time Sweeper. Therefore, the letter dated
25.07.2015 is in the face of the appointment letter dated
06.09.2006.
7. It is, indeed, a settled position of law that a
part-time worker cannot claim the wages of a full-time
4
worker. For, the doctrine of 'Equal Pay for Equal Work'
is inapplicable as a part-time worker does not discharge
the equal work of a full-time worker. Therefore, the
learned Single Judge was unjustified in directing the
State to pay the minimum of the pay scale of a regular
employee to the petitioner.
8. According to the State, presently, the
petitioner is being paid the minimum wages i.e.
Rs.3180/- per month. The said amount shall be
continued to be paid to the petitioner during the
pendency of the writ petition.
9. For the reasons stated above, this appeal is
hereby allowed. The order dated 05.10.2020 is hereby
set aside.
_______________________________
RAGHVENDRA SINGH CHAUHAN, C.J.
_________________
ALOK KUMAR VERMA, J.
Dt: 9th August, 2021
Negi
