(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN SINHA)

I.A. No. 1888 of 2013 has been filed to condone delay of approximately 11 days in filing of the Appeal. Considering the duration and explanation for delay, important questions of law involved, submission of the parties, we condone the delay.

2. Respondent no. 1, the Bihar Human Rights Commission (hereinafter referred to as =the Commission‘), has not entered appearance despite valid service of notice. Respondent no.2 entered appearance suo-moto. Notice could not be served on respondent's 3, 4 and5. Subsequently it was directed to be served through respondent no.6. Respondent no.5 then entered appearance. Respondent no.6 stated that no person by the name of respondents 3 and 4 was enrolled with them.

3. The present Appeal assails order dated 18.12.2012 dismissing CWJC 18780 of 2012. It affirms order dated 28.5.2012 passed by the Commission fixing remuneration payable to Contract Data Entry Operators holding they should be paid one notch higher as per the proposed wage structure, i.e. Rs.10,086/-, recommended for proposed grade II. The recommendation dated 24.12.2011 of the Official Committee headed by the Principle Secretary, Finance, was modified by the Commission holding that the recommendation for wage revision was not in accordance with its observations dated 16.1.2012.

4. The Learned Single Judge held that the Data Entry Operators had been rendering satisfactory services from February 1999 i.e. for more than 12 years. The Commission had opined that the remuneration fixed was low affecting full enjoyment of life and liberty. Article 14 of the Constitution provided for equality and equal protection of the law, Article 21 protects life and personal liberty. Article 39 [d] of the Constitution was akin to Article 7 of the International Covenant on Economic Social and Cultural Rights, 1966. Fixation of wages below that paid in the private sector or that paid to technical workers under the government was exploitation denying living dignified wage as a model employer. Discrimination in payment of remuneration between regularly appointed Data Entry Operators and those on Contract was arbitrary.

5. Learned Additional Advocate General XIV, for the Appellants submitted that Data Entry Operators are not government servants. They are engaged on contract through service providers. They accepted the appointment aware of remuneration payable. Data Entry Operators consist of three categories. Remuneration in Grade III, the basic grade, was fixed at Rs. 7649/– and after statutory deductions it came to Rs. 6341/– . Grade II was fixed at Rs.11,908/- and after statutory deductions it came to Rs. 10,086/–. The next higher Grade I were to be paid Rs. 15,193/– and after statutory deductions came to Rs. 12,880/–. The Commission, a statutory body, lacked jurisdiction under the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993(hereinafter referred to as the Act) to determine remuneration payable to Grade I at Rs.10,086/– payable to Grade II.

6. The minimum wage fixed in the IT sector was Rs.192/– per day which comes to approximately Rs 4992/– per month. It was later revised on 15.10.2012 to Rs. 200/– per day which comes to approximately Rs. 5200/– per month. A claim for revision of remuneration did not constitute violation of a human right as they were being paid more than the Minimum wages. The jurisdiction of the Commission is prescribed by Section 12 of the Act. Residuary clause (j) cannot be invoked to enlarge jurisdiction beyond what the statute prescribes. The Commission, if at all could only have made a recommendation under Section 18 of the Act. It could not issue mandatory directions and monitor compliance. It had limited jurisdiction to call for a compliance report under Section 18 (5) of the Act. Under Section 18(1) it could direct payment of compensation or damages but not enhancement of salary. Section 18 (b) makes it explicit that the Commission has no plenary or prerogative as this Court under Article 22