ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
BEFORE : DR. DHANANJAYA YESHWANT CHANDRACHUD, C.J. AND SUNEET KUMAR, J.
Smt. RAM SHRI AND ANOTHER ....Appellants
Versus
STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS .....Respondents
(Special Appeal Defective No. 119 of 2015, decided on 11th February, 2015)
Cases cited :
(2006) 4 SCC 1 (Para 2); (2009) 9 SCC 514 (Para 7)-Considered; 2014(10) ADJ 703 (DB) (Para 8)-Followed.
Editorial Note :
Judgment and order dated 15.4.2014, passed by Single Judge in Writ-A No. 27080 of 2014 (All)-Affirmed.
By the Court.—The appellants are daily wagers in the employment of the Chandra Shekhar Azad University of Agriculture and Technology, represented in these proceedings by the second and third respondents. The appellants had filed a writ petition (Writ-A No. 27080 of 2014) seeking to challenge an order passed by the third respondent declining their claim for the payment of wages at the minimum of the pay-scale admissible to regular employees and a writ of mandamus for the payment of the minimum of the pay-scale. By the impugned judgment and order of the learned Single Judge dated 15 May 2014, the University has been directed to pay atleast the minimum wages as prescribed by the Government. The appellants are in appeal, seeking a direction for the payment of the minimum of the pay-scale as admissible to regular employees of the University.
2. Initially, the appellants filed a writ petition (Writ - A No. 29214 of 2013), seeking regularization and pay parity of the minimum wages being paid to the regular employees of the University. The University resisted the petition on the ground that there was no rule for regularization and such a claim could not be made in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka and others v. Uma Devi (3) and others, (2006) 4 SCC 1. The writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the competent authority to consider the grievance in accordance with law and to pass an order thereon. Contempt proceedings (Contempt Application No. 5585 of 2014) were initiated, in which on 22 November 2013 an order was passed directing a decision in accordance with the earlier order within two months, failing which, it was stated, that the competent authority would be liable to be summoned and prosecuted after framing charges. An order was passed by the third respondent on 27 January 2014 declining the claim of the appellant. The impugned order records that, in the past, payment at minimum of the pay-scale had been allowed to certain daily wage employees based on a judgment of the Allahabad High Court rendered in 2000. However, in view of the subsequent decision of the Supreme Court in Uma Devi (supra), it was held that these daily wage employees who have been appointed illegally could not be given the benefit of the earlier decision. Moreover, it was stated that the State Government has not provided funds to the University for payment at the minimum of the pay-scale and that the University was unable to bear the financial burden. This led to the filing of the writ petition in which the learned Single Judge has issued directions on 15 May 2014, directing that the appellants be paid atleast the minimum wages prescribed by the Government to such daily wage employees.
3. The sole basis on which the appellants claim payment at the minimum of the pay-scale, is an alleged claim of parity with certain other daily wagers who had succeeded in writ proceedings before this Court. As the record before this Court indicates, initially on 24 April 2000, an order was passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 7942 of 1994, directing the University to pay the minimum of the pay-scale admissible to Class-III and Class-IV daily waged workers. A special appeal (Special Appeal No. 565 of 2000) was dismissed on 10 May 2001. The Supreme Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition on 10 December 2001. Following this, certain orders were passed by the learned Single Judges of this Court directing the University to pay at the minimum of the pay-scale admissible to regular employees. The appellants have annexed to these proceedings, an order passed by Rakesh Sharma, J in Santosh Kumar Asthana and others v. State of U.P. and another, Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 51066 of 2003.
4. On the other hand, in a special appeal filed by the University, Chandra Shekhar Azad University of Agriculture and Technology v. Smt. Renu and others, Special Appeal No. 477 of 2010, a Division Bench of this Court in an or
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.