Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

STATE OF U.P. & OTHERS versus MATA DEEN

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


State Of U.P. & Others v. Mata Deen - SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. 6 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 493 (6 January 2006)

 

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

COURT NO. 32

      Special Appeal No. 6 of 2006

        State of U.P. and others Vs. Mata Deen

*****

Hon'ble S. Rafat Alam, J.

Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.

This appeal is preferred against the order of the Hon'ble Single Judge dated 14.12.2004 whereby the writ petition of the respondent was disposed of with the direction to respondent no. to the writ petition, i.e., the Divisional Forest Officer, Orai to consider the claim of the petitioner respondent for regularization and pass a detailed reasoned order within a period of two months from the date of production of a certified copy of that order. It was further provided in the order of the Hon'ble Single Judge that till the disposal of representation, the petitioner respondent shall be paid minimum pay scale as directed in the case of State of U.P. and others Vs. Putti Lal, reported in (2002 ) 2 UPLBEC 1595.

It appears that daily wagers of the Forest Department approached this Court by filing various writ petitions claiming regularization as well as payment of salary at par with the regular employees on the basis of principles of 'equal pay for equal work'. A division Bench of this Court vide judgment and order dated 10.12.97 the State Government to frame rules in respect of the employees working on daily wage basis in the Forest Department and thereafter consider their claim for regularization accordingly. The State Government went in appeal before the Hon'ble Apex Court and the Hon'ble Apex Court vide judgment dated 21.2.2002, disposed of the appeal with the direction to consider the claim of regularization/absorption in accordance with the statutory rules and till then they shall be entitled to minimum of pay scale provided to regular employees. However, they would not be entitled to claim increments and other allowances admissible to their counterparts.

In the case in hand also, the petitioner respondent is a daily wager working in the Forest Department and, therefore, as per order of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of U.P. & others Vs. Putti Lal (Supra), he is also entitled to get the minimum of pay scale. We, therefore, do not find any fault in the order of the Hon'ble Single Judge. Learned Standing Counsel, however, relying on a judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana & others Vs. Charanjit Singh & others, reported in Judgment Today 2005 (12) SC 475, sought to argue that a daily wager cannot claim for getting the scale provided to regular employees and, thus, the Hon'ble Single Judge erred in directing to pay the minimum of scale to the petitioner respondent.

We do not find any force in the submission  for the reason that in the case of State of Haryana & others Vs. Charanjit Singh & others (Supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court has considered the judgment in the case of State of Haryana Vs. Jasmer Singh, JT 1996 (10) SC 876 and observed in para 12 of the judgment as under:

"Before giving such direction, the High Court also did not keep in mind as to what would be its implications and impact on the other employees working in the appellant University. From the averments made in the writ petition extracted above, it is clear that no details were given and no material was placed before the High Court for comparison in order to apply the principle of equal pay for equal work. The Court in State of Haryana Vs. Jasmer Singh, JT 1996 (10) SC 876 observed that the principle of 'equal pay for equal work' is not always easy to apply. There are inherent difficulties in comparing and evaluating work done by different persons in different organizations even in the same organization."

Since the petitioner-respondent is also placed on similar footing as that of Putti Lal's case and is also working in the Forest Department, the appellant is bound by the order of the Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in the case of State of U.P. & others Vs. Putti Lal (Supra). In that view of the matter, we do not find any merit in the appeal.

The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.

Dated: 6.1.2006

SA


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.