Sant Ram v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Forest Deptt. Lko. and 2 Others

Order dated 09.05.2024 "1. Heard.

¶2The contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that the petitioners have been working on the post of Zoo Keeper, Mali & Driver on daily wages since 2013 in the Forest Department.

¶3Reliance has been placed on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Sabha Shanker Dube vs. Divisional Forest Officer and others- (2019) 12 SCC 297, to contend that the Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforesaid judgment has categorically held that the temporary employees are entitled to minimum of the pay scale as long as they continue in service.

¶4Reliance has also been placed on an interim order of this Court dated 09.11.2023 in Writ-A No.9383 of 2023 in re: Vijay Kumar Srivastava vs. State of U.P. and 2 others, wherein a direction has been issued by this Court at Allahabad that all the petitioners and other similarly situated workers/employees would be paid minimum of basic pay @ Rs.18,000/- in compliance of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of until their claim for regularisation is disposed of by framing guidelines.

¶5The contention is that once the petitioners are working on daily wages since the year 2013 and are continuously working as per specific averment made in paragraph 3 of the petition consequently the petitioners would be entitled for the benefit of the interim order of this Court dated 09.11.2023 passed in the case of Vijay Kumar Srivastava (supra) as well as the judgments of the Apex Court in the case of Sabha Shanker Dube (supra) and Putti Lal (supra).

¶6Learned Standing Counsel prays for and is granted a week's time to seek instructions in the matter as to why the petitioners be not given the benefit of the judgments of the Apex Court in the case of Sabha Shanker Dube (supra) and Putti Lal (supra) as well as the interim order of this Court in the case of Vijay Kumar Srivastava (supra). List in the next week as fresh. " Order dated 23.05.2024 "Power filed today in Court by Sri Pritish Kumar, Advocate, on behalf of respondents no. 3 to 5 is taken on record. He prays for and is granted a week's time to seek instructions as to whether the petitioners are working on daily wage basis under the respondents and if so, as to why benefit of judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Sabha Shanker Dube vs. Divisional Forest Officer and others- (2019) 12 SCC 297 be not extended to the petitioners. List next week as fresh indicating the name of Sri Pritish Kumar, learned counsel, in the cause list from the side of the respondents." Order dated 30.05.2024 "Shri Pritish Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent no. 3 prays for and is granted a weeks time to seek instructions in the matter. As the matter is prima facie squarely covered by the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sabha Shanker Dube vs Divisional Forest Officer and others, 2019 (12) SCC 297 as such list this case in the first week of July, 2024 as fresh."

¶5Learned Standing Counsel tried to defend in action of the opposite parties by submitting that since the service of the petitioner have not been regularized therefore, he is not entitled for minimum of the pay scale. He further submitted that in view of the Government Order dated 06.12.2023 for providing minimum of the pay scale the required services should be at least 20 years.

¶6Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the material available on record, I am of the considered opinion that any Government Order if issued in derogation of the judgments of Apex Court would be nullity in the eyes of law and the implication thereof may not adversely affect the employees who are covered with the settled principles of law of the Apex Court. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sabha Shanker Dube (supra) has clarified the possession considering various judgments of the Apex Court right from the case of State of U.P. and others vs. Putti Lal; 1997 SCC OnLine All 864 till State of Punjab vs. Jagjit Singh; (2017) 1 SCC 148, has observed that the daily rated workers employed in Group-D posts if served for substantial period and their regularization could not be considered, at least they are entitled to minimum pay scale applicable to the regular employees, for the convenience, para 11 and para 12 of the case i.e Sabha Shanker Dube (supra) reads as under:- "11. The issue that was considered by this Court in Jagjit Singh (supra) is whether temporary employees (daily wage employees, ad hoc appointees, employees appointed on casual basis, contractual employees and likewise) are entitled to the minimum of the regular pay scales on account of their performing the same duties which are discharged by those engaged on regular basis against the sanctioned posts.After considering several judgments including the judgments of this Court in Tilak Raj (supra) and Surjit Singh (supra), this Court held that temporary employees are entitled to draw wages at the minimum of the pay scales which are applicable to the regular employees holding the same post.

¶12In view of the judgment in Jagjit Singh (supra), we are unable to uphold the view of the High Court that the Appellants-herein are not entitled to be paid the minimum of the pay sales. We are not called upon to adjudicate on the rights of the Appellants relating to the regularization of their services. We are concerned only with the principle laid down by this Court initially in Putti Lal (supra) relating to persons who are similarly situated to the Appellants and later affirmed in Jagjit Singh (supra) that temporary employees are entitled to minimum of the pay scales as long as they continue in service."

¶7Therefore, the present petitioner who is continuously discharging his duties w.e.f 01.07.2005 i.e for a substantial length of time, is entitled for the minimum of the pay scale as long as he continue in service.

¶8Accordingly, the writ petition is partly allowed and the opposite parties are directed to make a payment of minimum of pay scale to the petitioner as long as he continue in service.

¶9Oral prayer has been made by learned counsel for the petitioner to direct the respondents to regularise the services of the petitioner. In this regard, it is open for the petitioner to move appropriate application/representation before the competent authority, within two weeks from today, and in case any such representation is moved, competent authority is directed to consider and decide the same expeditiously, in accordance with law.

¶10It is further directed that in compliance of the aforesaid order, the competent authority shall pass orders with expedition, preferably within a period of four weeks from the production of certified copy of this order, making payment of minimum of the pay scale to the petitioner.

¶11There shall be no order as to costs. Order Date :- 19.11.2024 A. Verma (Alok Mathur, J.) High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Court No. - 6 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 10713 of 2024 Petitioner :- Sant Ram Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Forest Deptt. Lko. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Nand Kishore,Raj Kumar Dwivedi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. 2. By means of this petition, the petitioner has prayed the following relief(s):- "(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus, commanding the opposite parties to pay minimum pay scale to the petitioner i.e Rs. 18,000/- per month on the basis of Government Order dated 24.09.2024 which is contained as Annexure No. 3 to the writ petition. (ii) Issue any suitable order or direction which this Hon'ble Court deem, fit, just and proper in the circumstances of the case in favour of the petitioner. (iii) Allow writ petition with costs." 3. The admitted position of this case at the bar is that the petitioner is working on Class IV- post as daily wagers since 01.07.2005 but he has not been paid the minimum of pay scale despite the controversy in question has been settled by the Apex Court in catena of cases including the case of Sabha Shanker Dube Vs. Divisional Forest Officer and others; 2019 12 SCC 297 (Annexed as Annexure No.14 of the petition). 4. This Court in the case of similarly situated persons i.e. in Writ - A No. 3601 of 2024 has passed various orders time to time, for the convenience, orders dated 09.05.2024, 23.05.2024 and 30.05.2024 , passed therein are being reproduced herein below:-