Uttarakhand High Court
WPSS/1960/2017 on 28 December, 2023
Author: Manoj Kumar Tiwari
Bench: Manoj Kumar Tiwari
Office Notes,
reports, orders or
S. proceedings or
Date COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
No directions and
Registrar's order
with Signatures
WPSS No. 1957 of 2017
WPSS No. 1958 of 2017
WPSS No. 1960 of 2017
Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, A.C.J.
Mr. Ganesh Kandpal, Advocate for the
petitioners.
2. Mr. Puran Singh Bisht, Additional Chief
Standing Counsel for the State of
Uttarakhand/respondents.
3. Since common questions of law and
fact are involved in these writ petitions,
therefore they were heard together and are
being decided by a common judgment.
However, for the sake of brevity, facts of
Writ Petition (S/S) No. 1957 of 2017 alone
are being considered and discussed.
4. Petitioners were engaged as daily
wager against Group-D post in Forest
Department in the year 2014. Since they
were not being paid minimum of pay scale,
therefore, they earlier filed WPSS No. 2677
(S/S) of 2015, which was disposed of with
direction to the Competent Authority to
consider the case of petitioners for grant of
minimum of pay scale in terms of judgment
rendered in WPSS No. 2008 of 2014.
5. Pursuant to the order of this Court
passed in WPSS No. 2677 of 2015,
representation made by petitioners was
considered and rejected by Divisional Forest
Officer, Tarai West Forest Division,
Ramnagar, vide order dated 05.06.2017,
which is under challenge in this writ
petition.
6. Perusal of the impugned order dated
05.06.2017 reveals that the only ground, on
which petitioners' claim for minimum of pay
scale is rejected, is that, they were not
appointed against a sanctioned post and
they were engaged as unskilled casual
labours, therefore, they are not entitled for
minimum of pay scale.
7. Learned counsel for petitioners submits
that the view taken by Divisional Forest
Officer while rejecting petitioners'
representation is contrary to the
Government Order dated 12.03.2014. The
said Government Order is on record as
Annexure-3 to the writ petition. Perusal
thereof reveals that every employee, who is
serving against Group-C and Group-D post
was given minimum of pay scale, but,
without allowances, as per the
th
recommendation of 6 Pay Commission,
w.e.f. 01.01.2006.
8. Learned counsel for petitioner relies on
the law declared by Hon'ble Supreme Court
in the case of State of Punjab v. Jagjit
Singh, (2017) 1 SCC 148. Paragraph no. 54
of the said judgment, on which reliance is
placed, is extracted below:-
"54. The Full Bench of the High Court while
adjudicating upon the above controversy had
concluded that temporary employees were not entitled
to the minimum of the regular pay scale, merely for
the reason, that the activities carried on by daily
wagers and regular employees were similar. The Full
Bench however, made two exceptions. Temporary
employees, who fell in either of the two exceptions,
were held entitled to wages at the minimum of the pay
scale drawn by regular employees. The exceptions
recorded by the Full Bench of the High Court in the
impugned judgment are extracted hereunder : (Avtar
Singh case [Avtar Singh v. State of Punjab, 2011 SCC
OnLine P&H 15326 : ILR (2013) 1 P&H 566] , SCC
OnLine P&H para 37)
"(1) A daily wager, ad hoc or contractual appointee
against the regular sanctioned posts, if appointed after
undergoing a selection process based upon fairness
and equality of opportunity to all other eligible
candidates, shall be entitled to minimum of the regular
pay scale from the date of engagement.
(2) But if daily wagers, ad hoc or contractual
appointees are not appointed against regular
sanctioned posts and their services are availed
continuously, with notional breaks, by the State
Government or its instrumentalities for a sufficient long
period i.e. for 10 years, such daily wagers, ad hoc or
contractual appointees shall be entitled to minimum of
the regular pay scale without any allowances on the
assumption that work of perennial nature is available
and having worked for such long period of time, an
equitable right is created in such category of persons.
Their claim for regularisation, if any, may have to be
considered separately in terms of legally permissible
scheme.
(3) In the event, a claim is made for minimum pay
scale after more than three years and two months of
completion of 10 years of continuous working, a daily
wager, ad hoc or contractual employee shall be
entitled to arrears for a period of three years and two
months."
9. Learned counsel for petitioners has
also relied on a judgment dated 14.08.2015
rendered by Division Bench of this Court in
WPSS No. 2008 of 2014.
10. Learned State Counsel, however,
submits that only such daily wager
employees, who were party to the writ
petitions, which were decided with the writ
petition filed by Putti Lal, alone are entitled
for minimum of pay scale, and since,
petitioners were not party to the writ
petitions, which were decided with the writ
petition filed by Putti Lal, therefore,
petitioners were rightly not given benefit of
minimum of pay scale.
11. The submission made by learned State
Counsel cannot be accepted. Since
petitioners belong to the same class of
employees, to whom benefit of minimum of
pay scale is being given, therefore, denial of
minimum of pay scale to petitioners only on
the ground that they were not party in the
writ petitions, which were decided with the
case of Putti Lal, cannot be accepted. Thus,
benefit of Government Order dated
12.03.2014 cannot be denied to the
petitioner.
12. Even otherwise also, in view of the law
laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Case in the
case of State of Punjab v. Jagjit Singh
(supra), petitioners are entitled to minimum
of pay scale, as they have served as daily
wager for nearly 10 years.
13. In such view of the matter, the
impugned order dated 05.06.2017 is liable
to be quashed and is hereby quashed.
14. The writ petition is allowed. The
Competent Authority is directed to re-
consider claim of petitioners for minimum of
pay scale in the light of discussion, made
above. This Court hopes and expects that
decision in the matter shall be taken by the
Competent Authority within two months
from the date of production of certified copy
of this order.
(Manoj Kumar Tiwari, A.C.J.)
28.12.2023
Navin
