JUDGMENT :

1. Instruction filed today, is taken on record.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Jitendra Kumar Singh, learned Standing counsel for the State.

3. The present writ petition has been filed alleging that the petitioner was employee with the respondent no. 3 on 15.6.2001 on a Class-IV post and is being paid wages at the rate of Rs.450/- per month since his initial engagement. It is also stated that despite the petitioner being entitled for being considered for regularization in terms of 2016 Rules, the case of the petitioner is not being considered.

4. Learned Standing Counsel was called upon to obtain instructions. He has produced instructions dated 01.10.2021 stating that in terms of the Government Order dated 09.01.1986, minimum wages were fixed at Rs.350/- per month. Subsequently, vide Government Order dated 01.07.1992, the wages of ''Kahar' were increased from Rs.400/- to Rs.500/- per month which is being paid to the petitioner. In respect of the claim of the petitioner for regularization, the instructions are that the petitioner had earlier also filed a representation raising the issues which was decided on 08.05.2015 whereby his request was rejected as such the same cannot be considered now.

5. The counsel for the petitioner argues that payment of Rs. 450/- per month as wages for a continuous period of about 20 years is nothing but other forms of forced labour and strictly prohibited under Article 23 of the Constitution of India.

6. The question of "other forms of Forced Labour" as finds place in Article 23 of the Constitution of India came up for consideration before the Hon'ble Supreme Court for the first time in the case of People's Union For Democratic Rights and Others v. Union of India and Others; (1982) 3 SCC 235, wherein in the form of Public Interest Litigation, the plight of the workers engaged in the construction for the Asian Games, was highlighted before the Supreme Court. The contention before the Supreme Court was that the workers employed for constructions were being paid wages which were less than the minimum wages prescribed. The Supreme Court specifically considered the scope of Article 23 and recorded as under:-

"12. Article 23 enacts a very important fundamental right in the following terms:

"23. Prohibition of traffic in human beings and forced labour.--(1) Traffic in human beings and begar and other similar forms of forced labour are prohibited and any contravention of this provision shall be an offence punishable in accordance with law.

(2) Nothing in this article shall prevent the State from imposing compulsory service for public purposes, and in imposing such service the State shall not make any discrimination on grounds only of religion, race, caste or class or any of them."

Now many of the fundamental rights enacted in Part III operate as limitations on the power of the State and impose negative obligations on the State not to encroach on individual liberty and they are enforceable only against the State. But there are certain fundamental rights conferred by the Constitution which are enforceable against the whole world and they are to be found inter alia in Articles 17, 23 and 24. We have already discussed the true scope and ambit of Article 24 in an earlier portion of this judgment and hence we do not propose to say anything more about it. So also we need not expatiate on the proper meaning and effect of the fundamental right enshrined in Article 17 since we are not concerned with that article in the present writ petition. It is Article 23 with which we are concerned and that article is clearly designed to protect the individual not only against the State but also against other private citizens. Article 23 is not limited in its application against the State but it prohibits "traffic in human being and begar and other similar forms of forced labour" practised by anyone else. The sweep of Article 23 is wide and unlimited and it strikes at "traffic in human beings and begar and