JUDGMENT :

(Vivek Chaudhary, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for State-respondents.

2. The petitioner has approached this Court challenging order dated 15.7.2019 passed by respondent no.2-Director, Horticulture and Food Processing, Lucknow whereby his representation for minimum of pay scale is rejected.

3. Facts of the case, as claimed by petitioner, are that petitioner was engaged as a daily wager on Class-IV post (Mali) in the year 2013 in the office of Scientist, State Tissue Culture Lab, Sector-G, Aliganj, Lucknow, where he was being paid daily wages only. He claims that other similarly situated daily wage employees, who have completed more than five years of service, are being paid minimum of pay scale while the same is denied to him.

4. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that impugned order is passed on false and incorrect facts. Submissions made by petitioner are either not considered in the impugned order or are rejected by concocting incorrect facts.

5. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel strongly opposing the petition, submits that since petitioner is working as a daily wager through a service provider agency, hence, he is not entitled for minimum of pay scale. He further submits that impugned order is passed in accordance with law.

6. It is not in dispute that aforesaid Lab is run by department of Horticulture and Food Processing and is part of the same. It is the officers and employees of Horticulture and Food Processing department of State of U.P., who are working and running the said Lab. While rejecting the representation, it is noted that petitioner in the year 2013 had worked for 2 months, in 2014 again for 2 months, in 2016 for 5 months, in 2017 for 4 months, in 2018 for 2 months and since September, 2018, he has been working through a service provider agency.

7. In counter affidavit dated 5.12.2019 also said facts are reiterated. However, a detailed supplementary counter affidavit was filed on 8.2.2023 and along with the same working chart of petitioner from September, 2013 onwards is enclosed as Annexure-SCA-9. The said chart shows that since the year 2013 till date, working of petitioner only on muster-roll is considered while rejecting his representation. His entire working admittedly through a service provider is not considered. The same shows that petitioner started working since September, 2013 and worked for all four months of the year 2013 and thereafter in 2014, he worked for 8 months, in 2015 for 7 months, in 2016 for 11 months, in 2017 for 10 months, in 2018 for 7 months, in 2019 for 12 months and in 2020, he was continuously working till the time chart was prepared.

8. Thus, from the aforesaid chart, it is clear that impugned order is passed by referring to wrong and incorrect facts. The Director, Horticulture and Food Processing is a senior officer. It is not expected that he would refer to incorrect and incomplete facts while considering the case of a person under the orders of this Court. He is cautioned not to conduct proceedings in such manner in future.

9. The aforesaid facts clearly show that petitioner is now working for last around ten years with respondent department.

10. The petitioner claims that persons, who are working as daily wager for more than five years, are paid minimum of pay scale under the orders of this Court. For the said purpose, learned counsel for petitioner relies upon a communication dated 4.11.2004 made by Joint Director/Incharge Officer, Rajkiya Utak Sambardhan Proyogshala, Aliganj, Lucknow to Director, Horticulture and Food Processing, Lucknow. In the said communication, Joint Director/Incharge Officer has specifically stated that such daily wage employees in the department, who have completed five years or more service, are getting minimum of pay scale of Rs.3050-4590 under the orders of High Court. Sri Pankaj Srivastava, Daily Wager is getting minimum of aforesaid pay scale. Thus, he has recommended that other