The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad has dismissed two special appeals filed by the Government of Uttar Pradesh , firmly upholding the right of daily wage workers in the Forest Department to receive the minimum pay scale equivalent to regular Class IV employees. In a significant judgment that highlights the state's persistent failure to adhere to constitutional mandates, the division bench of Justice Saral Srivastava and Justice Sudhanshu Chauhan imposed collective costs of ₹1,00,000 upon the appellants. The court directed that ₹50,000 be paid to each of the two respondents, Ramesh and Umesh, within one month, citing the state’s "highly reprehensible" and "arbitrary" conduct in litigating settled legal matters.

The legal battle stems from the long-standing grievance of daily wagers—workers often employed as Chowkidars, Watchers, or plantation protection staff—who have been forced to fight for the principle of " equal pay for equal work " for over three decades. For instance, the respondent Ramesh, who has been employed at the Divisional Forest Office in Obra since 2009 , was being paid approximately ₹6,162 per month. This amount is significantly lower than the ₹18,000 per month minimum pay scale mandated for regular Class IV government employees under the Seventh Pay Commission. Despite multiple directives from the Supreme Court of India and the Allahabad High Court , the Forest Department had consistently denied these workers their full due by invoking "flimsy" administrative guidelines.

The court’s ruling serves as a stern reminder of the principle enshrined in Article 39(d) of the Constitution of India , which guarantees equal pay for equal work . During the proceedings, the state attempted to rely on internal office memoranda and guidelines issued on September 24, 2024 , to justify paying the daily wagers lower rates. However, the bench observed that these guidelines were not government orders but merely administrative instructions that directly contradicted established legal precedents. The court explicitly held that these administrative maneuvers did not require a formal legal challenge to be declared illegal, as they were contrary to the binding law settled by the Supreme Court in cases such as State of U.P. v. Putti Lal and State of Punjab v. Jagjit Singh .

Persistent Legal Battles Over Wages

The history of this controversy reflects a systemic failure by the state authorities to recognize the dignity and rights of temporary employees. The Putti Lal ruling, which was affirmed by the Supreme Court in 2006 , set a clear mandate that daily wage earners performing identical duties to permanent government staff are entitled to the minimum pay scale of that cadre. This was further reinforced in subsequent contempt proceedings and appellate court judgments, including Chanchal Kumar Tiwari v. State of U.P. , where courts expressed frustration over the department’s attempt to create artificial classifications between workers eligible for regularization and those who are not.

In the present case, the state attempted to argue that the respondents were not continuously employed or were merely seasonal workers. However, the bench noted that internal records provided by the Principal Secretary of the Forest Department itself contradicted this narrative. The court found that the workers had been engaged for substantial durations—in some cases up to twelve months in a year—proving that their employment was essential and permanent in nature. By characterizing the work as intermittent, the state authorities sought to deprive the workers of their legitimate constitutional claims.

Justice Chauhan, delivering the judgment, remarked on the "anguish and displeasure" of the court regarding the state's litigation strategy. The court observed, "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." The bench emphasized that the state's continued refusal to implement these payments has not only resulted in unnecessary expenditure on litigation but has also burdened the judiciary with countless, redundant petitions.

State's Failure to Comply with Judicial Mandates

The judgment also addressed the state's attempt to distinguish the current case from previous successes like that of Keshav Prasad , where the Forest Department had eventually complied with court orders. The court rejected the state's attempt to adopt a "pick and choose" policy, describing it as "arbitrary and illegal." The bench found it troubling that the state, as a model litigant , would fight cases to the "hilt" despite the issue of minimum pay scale being res-integra .

The court further clarified that granting relief at the interim stage , which effectively provides the final relief sought by the petitioner, was justified in this instance. Given the passage of nearly 30 years since the initial litigation began, the court reasoned that denying the minimum pay scale while awaiting a final judgment after years of potential further litigation would cause "severe hardship and injury" to the respondents. The bench noted that the legal position regarding these workers is so firmly established by the Supreme Court that there was no doubt the petitioners would ultimately succeed in their claims.

By imposing the ₹1,00,000 cost, the court signaled that the era of delaying justice through administrative circulars must come to an end. The directive mandates that the Forest Department must now align its wage structure with the minimum pay scale of ₹18,000 for all eligible daily wage earners without further delay. The state is expected to issue a comprehensive policy that covers all such workers, reducing the need for individual litigation that has, until now, clogged the dockets of the High Court . The respondents, who have spent years navigating the bureaucratic and legal hurdles of the state administration, are now entitled to the immediate disbursement of their arrears and future payments in accordance with the court's order.