Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD AT LUCKNOW BENCH
Abdul Moin, J.
Chhavi Ram – Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and Another – Respondents
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 4827 of 2022
Decided On : 16-04-2024
Employment - Wages - Pay-Scale and Increment - The court discussed the entitlement of daily wage employees to minimum pay-scales and increments, referencing key judgments that established the principle of equal pay for equal work, ultimately ruling in favor of the petitioner for minimum pay but against increments.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, initially appointed on a daily wage basis in 1990, sought minimum pay-scale and increments after regularization in 2002. His claims were rejected by the respondents, leading to the current writ petition.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner was entitled to the minimum pay-scale applicable to regular employees from 1994 until his regularization, but not entitled to increments based on conflicting precedents.
Issues: Whether the petitioner is entitled to minimum pay-scale and yearly increments as a daily wage employee who was regularized.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that while daily wage employees are entitled to minimum pay-scales, they are not entitled to increments, as established by higher court precedents.
Result: The writ petition is partly allowed; the petitioner is entitled to minimum pay-scale with arrears but not to increments.
JUDGMENT :
Abdul Moin, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Saharsh Shrivastav, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2.
2. The instant writ petition has been filed praying for the following main reliefs:
(ii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties to provide the regular pay-scale of class IV post with yearly increments on the period of 22.7.1990 to 25.2.2002, with all other consequential benefits of service, within time as directed by this Hon'ble Court.
(iii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties to refix the salary and post retirement benefits and pension of petitioner after providing regular pay-scale of class IV post with yearly increments on the period of 22.7.1990 to 25.2.2002, within time as directed by this Hon'ble Court.
(iv) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties to grant and pay all retirement benefit of petitioner after counting his entire services for the purpose of qualifying service for retirement benefit.”
3. The case set forth by the petitioner is that the petitioner had been appointed on daily wage basis on 22.7.1990 under the respondents. As the petitioner was not being paid the minimum pay-scale he was constrained to approach this Court by filing Writ A No. 2023 of 1997 in re: Chhavi Ram v. State of U.P. and others praying for following reliefs:
(ii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties to regularise the services of the petitioner from the date of initial appointment that is 22.7.1990 in Class IV establishment and further.
(iii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties to give all consequential benefits such as seniority in Class IV establishment from the date of initial appointment i.e. 22.7.1990, arrears of difference of pay and other benefits arising thereof.”
4. During pendency of the aforesaid writ petition the service of the petitioner was regularised vide order dated 25.2.2002, a copy of which is annexure 2 to the petition. The petitioner was regularised on a class IV post in the pay-scale of Rs 2550-55-2660-60-3200. The petitioner also retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.7.2021. Subsequent to his retirement, the writ petition filed by the petitioner has been decided vide judgment and order dated 12.4.2022, a copy of which is annexure 3 to the petition, whereby the writ Court has permitted to the petitioner to file a fresh representation to the respondent No. 2 with respect of his grievance and the respondent No. 2 was directed to consider the same and pass a reasoned and speaking order. In pursuance thereof the claim of the petitioner for grant of minimum pay-scale and increments has been rejected primarily on the ground that the petitioner has been regularized vide the order dated 25.2.2002 and other persons who have been granted a minimum pay-scale have been granted the same in pursuance to the order passed by the writ Court.
5. Raising a challenge to the said order the instant writ petition has been filed with the reliefs as aforesaid.
6. The argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is that grant of minimum pay-scale to daily wagers is no longer res-integra having been settled by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sabha Shanker Dube v. Divisional Forest Officer and others, 2019 (12) SCC 297, wherein Hon'ble Apex
Daily wage employees are entitled to minimum pay-scales equivalent to regular employees but not to increments or additional allowances.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that temporary employees are entitled to the minimum of the pay scale attached to the post without any increments or allowances, based on the princ....
Point of law: A scale of pay is attached to a definite post and in case of a daily-wager, he holds no post. The respondent workers cannot be held to hold any posts to claim even any comparison with t....
The principle of 'equal pay for equal work' may not apply to temporary employees, and unexplained delay in approaching the court can impact the decision.
The principle of 'equal pay for equal work' entitles temporary employees performing similar duties to receive at least the minimum pay of regular employees.
The principle of 'equal pay for equal work' as established by the Hon'ble Supreme Court was applied by the court to issue the direction for payment of salary in the minimum of the pay scale.
Temporary employees performing the same duties as regular employees are entitled to minimum wages as per the equal pay principle, asserting their right to equitable treatment.
The principle of 'equal pay for equal work' applies to temporary employees, but claims for minimum pay must be explicitly made in the writ petitions.
The principle of equal pay for equal work mandates that employees performing identical duties must receive the same remuneration, regardless of their employment status.
Point of Law : Daily wagers - Entitlement of minimum pay scale - Scope of review of order - Held, power of review cannot be confused with appellate power which enables a superior court to correct all....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
