9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (4) TMI 228X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... D’ posts and that some of them worked for short periods in projects - the Appellants are entitled to be paid the minimum of the pay scales applicable to regular employees working on the same posts. The State of Uttar Pradesh is directed to make payment of the minimum of pay scales to the Appellants with effect from 1st December, 2018. Appeal allowed. - Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 1045/2016 WITH SLP(C) No. 1252-1258/2016 (XI) SLP(C) No. 11108/2016 (XI) - - - Dated:- 14-11-2018 - MR S.A. BOBDE AND L. NAGESWARA RAO, JJ. For The Petitioner (s) : Mr. Rabin Majumder, AOR, Mr. S.R. Singh, Sr. Adv., Mr. Krishna Kumar Yadav, Adv., Mr. Kuldeep Yadav, Adv. And Mr. Yash Pal Dhingra, AOR For The Respondent (s) : Mr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Special Appeal No.1530 of 2007. 3. Special Appeal No.1530 of 2007 was filed by the State of Uttar Pradesh against the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 17th October, 2005 in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.48322 of 2000 and others. The said Writ Petitions were filed by daily wagers working in Group C and Group D posts in the Forest Department of the State of Uttar Pradesh. Regularization of services and equal pay for equal work were the reliefs that were sought by the Petitioners in those Writ Petitions. The learned Single Judge allowed the Writ Petitions by directing the State Government to re-consider the Petitioners-therein for regularization of their services, ignoring artificial breaks and by relaxing the minimum educati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Addl. Advocate General and Ms. Rachna Gupta, learned Advocate on-Record appearing for the Respondents. It was made clear by Mr. Marlapalle, learned Senior Advocate that the only point that requires consideration pertains to the entitlement of the Appellants to the minimum of the pay scales applicable to the regular employees in the Forest Department. It was submitted on behalf of the Appellants that the judgment of this Court in Civil Appeal No.3634 of 1998 in State of U.P. Ors. v. Putti Lal (2006) 9 SCC 337 still holds the field and the Division Bench ought to have granted the relief sought by following the said judgment. The Appellants relied upon a judgment of this Court in State of Punjab Ors. v. Jagjit Singh Ors. (2017) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... titled to is ₹ 18,000/-. 6. Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, learned Addl. Advocate General appearing for the State of Uttar Pradesh contended that the Appellants are working in projects after being employed as and when the necessity arises. There is no continuity of service and the employment of the Appellants is made periodically after long breaks. She submitted that the Appellants are not eligible for regularization in accordance with the rules and they are not working on sanctioned posts. She also submitted that any relief granted in favour of the Appellants will result in a heavy burden on the State exchequer. 7. It is necessary for us to refer to the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court of Allahabad in Special Appeal N ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (supra) to hold that the daily wagers cannot seek the benefit of the judgment of Putti Lal (supra) case in view of the subsequent decisions of this Court wherein, according to the High Court, it was held that daily wage employees were not entitled to the minimum of the pay scales. 9. On a comprehensive consideration of the entire law on the subject of parity of pay scales on the principle of equal pay for equal work, this Court in Jagjit Singh (supra) held as follows: 58. In our considered view, it is fallacious to determine artificial parameters to deny fruits of labour. An employee engaged for the same work cannot be paid less than another who performs the same duties and responsibilities. Certainly not, in a welfare ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the High Court that the Appellants-herein are not entitled to be paid the minimum of the pay sales. We are not called upon to adjudicate on the rights of the Appellants relating to the regularization of their services. We are concerned only with the principle laid down by this Court initially in Putti Lal (supra) relating to persons who are similarly situated to the Appellants and later affirmed in Jagjit Singh (supra) that temporary employees are entitled to minimum of the pay scales as long as they continue in service. 12. We express no opinion on the contention of the State Government that the Appellants are not entitled to the reliefs as they are not working on Group D posts and that some of them worked for short periods in p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
