Vishnath v. State of Uttar Pradesh — 1986 DIGILAW 271 (ALL)

JUDGMENT K.N. Singh, J. - The twenty two petitioners, who are daily wage workers in the High Court, along with class IV employees Association, High Court, Allahabad, have approached this Court by means of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents which include the State of Uttar Pradesh, the Chief Justice, High Court, and the Registrar of the High Court, and the Joint Secretary of the Government of Uttar Pradesh, Nyaya Vibhag, to pay the petitioners salary as admissible in accordance with the pay scales of various posts and duties of class IVth employees. The petitioners have further claimed relief for the revision of rates of their daily wages to make it consistent with the amount paid to the daily labourers working in another departments of the Government. 2. Petitioners 1 to 22 have been working in the High Court for a number of years as daily wagers. Some of them have been assigned to work at the residence of the Judges of this Court after the State made a provision to that effect in 1975, while others have been working in the High Court by performing the duties of Peon, Coolie, Mali, Sweeper, Chaukidar and Driver, etc. Although the daily wagers perform duties similar to those performed by members of class IV Service, but they are not being paid the salary or wages which is paid to the members of class IV service. The daily wagers are being paid wages at the rate of Rs. 6.17 per day. They are denied wages for holidays including Sundays, second Saturdays and thus at the end of the month they are paid wages at the rate of Rs. 185/- per month. The petitioners' grievance is that although they perform same duties and functions as are performed by Peons, Farrash, Mali, Coolie, Sweeper, Driver and Chaukidar etc., who are being paid salary in the grade of Rs. 305-390, being the lowest grade prescribed for class IV post. The petitioners have further submitted that daily wage labourers working in other departments of the State Government, namely, Director of Education and the Government Press are being paid at the rate of Rs. 10/- per day, but the petitioners who are rendering same kind of service are being discriminated and are being paid at a lower rate. 3. The petitioners have further submitted that daily wage labourers working in other departments of the State Government, namely, Director of Education and the Government Press are being paid at the rate of Rs. 10/- per day, but the petitioners who are rendering same kind of service are being discriminated and are being paid at a lower rate. 3. The petition is contested by the State of Uttar Pradesh as well as by the High Court. On behalf of the State Government, it is asserted that the petitioners who are daily wagers are not entitled to the same wages which are being paid to other class IV employees as they are not regular employees and they have no right to get the same wages which are being paid to regular class IV employees. It is further asserted that the daily labourers working in other departments of the Government including the office of the Director of Education and the Government Press, discharge different nature of work than the petitioners. The counter affidavit, however, does not disclose the difference in the nature of the work and duties performed by them, nor the details of any difference have been pointed out. It is noteworthy that the assertion that daily labourers working in the Education Department and the Government Press are being paid at the rate of Rs. 10/- per day, has not been denied. It is thus clear that the petitioners who are working as daily labourers and performing the duties of Peon, Mali, Sweeper, Coolie, Farrash and Chaukidar etc. are not being paid the same wages which are being paid to similar employees working in other departments. 4. The precise question as to whether the casual workers on daily wages doing the same work as class IV employees are entitled to the same salary and wages which are being paid to class IV employees was considered by the Supreme Court in Dhirendra Chameli v. State of U.P., (1986) 52 Fac LR 147. In that case also a similar question arose and the defence taken on behalf of the respondents before the Supreme Court was almost similar. It was further asserted before the Supreme Court that the daily wagers who took employment knew it fully well that they will be paid only daily wages and therefore they cannot claim anything more. In that case also a similar question arose and the defence taken on behalf of the respondents before the Supreme Court was almost similar. It was further asserted before the Supreme Court that the daily wagers who took employment knew it fully well that they will be paid only daily wages and therefore they cannot claim anything more. The Supreme Court repelled the contention in the following words : "This argument lies ill in the mouth of the Central Government for it is an all too familiar argument with the exploiting class and a welfare State committed to a socialist pattern of society cannot be permitted to advance such an argument. It must be remembered that in this country where there is so much unemployment, the choice for the majority of people is to starve or to take employment on whatever exploitative terms are offered by the employer. The fact that these employees accepted employment with full knowledge that they will be paid only daily wages and they will not get the same salary and conditions of service as other class IV employees, cannot provide an escape to the Central Government to avoid the mandate of equality enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution. This Article declares that there shall be equality before law and equal protection of the laws and implicit in it is the further principle that there must be equal pay for work of equal value. These employees who are in the service of the different Nehru Yuvak Kendras in the country and who are admittedly performing the same duties as class IV employees, must therefore get the same salary and conditions of service as class IV employees." On the aforesaid observations, the Supreme Court allowed the writ petition and directed the Central Government and the State of Uttar Pradesh to accord, to the petitioners before it, the same salary and conditions of service as were being given to class IV employees. The State of Uttar Pradesh was a party to the petition and the judgment was given in August, 1985, but it appears that in spite of the Supreme Court judgment the State Government has not taken steps to equate the wages of daily wagers working in the High Court at par with the salary and allowances of permanent class IV employees. In Surendra Singh v. Engineer-in-Chief C.P.W.D., (Writ Petns. Nos. In Surendra Singh v. Engineer-in-Chief C.P.W.D., (Writ Petns. Nos. 59-60 and 563-70 of 1983: (reported in 1986 Lab IC 551), the Supreme Court again considered this question and following the decision in Dhirendra Chameli's case (supra) issued direction to the Central Government to pay the same salary and allowances to casual and daily wagers in the Public Works Department as prescribed for regular class IV employees. In view of the aforesaid two judgments of the Supreme Court, there is no doubt that the daily wagers performing the same duties and functions as are being performed by regular class IV employees are entitled to the same salary and allowances. It is not open to the Government to practice discrimination by paying lower wages to the daily wagers. The petitioners are no doubt daily wage workers and have no security of tenure of their service but since they are performing the same duties and functions as are being carried out by regular class IV employees of the High Court, they are entitled to the same, salary and allowances which are being paid to class IV employees. 5. The scale of pay which will be paid to the daily labourers will be commensurate with the nature of duties which are being performed by them. For example, if a daily wage labourer is discharging the functions of Peon, Farrash, Coolie, Sweeper, Bhishti, Mali, Fireman, Liftman, Driver, Electrician, Helper, Bundle lifter, Chaukidar, etc, he will be assigned the scale of Rs. 305-390. The daily wage labourer discharging the functions of bundle lifter or daftari etc. will be assigned the scale of Rs. 315-440. 6. On behalf of the State Government, it was urged that the posts of daily wagers working on the establishment of the High Court have not been sanctioned by the State Government and as such they are not entitled to any relief from this Court. The contention of the respondents that the daily labourers employed on the establishment of the High Court are beyond the sanction permitted by the State Government is not correct perspective of the situation. This defence ceases to have any meaning in reference to time. The" State cannot be permitted not to act and then contend that its permission has not been taken. This defence ceases to have any meaning in reference to time. The" State cannot be permitted not to act and then contend that its permission has not been taken. Almost six years ago, the Registrar, High Court, wrote to the Joint Secretary, State of Uttar Pradesh, Department of Justice (High Court) Lucknow by his letter of 29th May, 1980, a copy of which was endorsed to the Accountant General, Uttar Pradesh, in response to the letter's communication dated 15th April, 1980. In this communication the Registrar, High Court, placed before the State Government the actual strength of the daily labourers employed. The Registrar, High Court, sought the sanction of the State Government for these posts. The exercise in seeking sanction had thus been set in motion, as stated above, almost six years ago. It is thus difficult to accept the contention of the State respondents that-the entire strength of the daily labourers has not been sanctioned or that the matter is under consideration. 7. The State Government's defence that the posts of daily wagers have not been sanctioned for the establishment of the High Court does not affect the question raised by the petitioners. The petitioners and other daily wage workers are performing duties and functions similar to those performed by regular class IV employees and as such they are entitled to same salary and allowance irrespective of the fact that the post is sanctioned or not. A similar argument as raised in the present petition, was submitted before the Supreme Court in Dhirendra Chameli's case ((1986) 52 Fac LR 147) (supra), but the Supreme Court rejected the same holding that it makes no difference whether the petitioners were appointed in sanctioned posts or not. So long as they have been performing the same duties they are entitled to receive the same salary applicable to class IV employees. In this view the respondents contention that the posts on which some of the daily labourers have been working have not been sanctioned, is not relevant and material for the purpose of the present petition. Since the petitioners have been performing the same duties, they must receive the same salary and conditions of service as applicable to class IV employees. 8. We accordingly allow the petition and direct the State Government to pay salary and allowances to the petitioner as below : 9. Since the petitioners have been performing the same duties, they must receive the same salary and conditions of service as applicable to class IV employees. 8. We accordingly allow the petition and direct the State Government to pay salary and allowances to the petitioner as below : 9. Daily wage labourers discharging the functions of peon, farrash, coolie, sweeper, bhishti, mali, fireman, liftman, helper and chaukidar etc., in the scale of Rs. 305-390, and Bundle lifters and Daftari will be paid in the scale of Rs. 315-440. Those required to work as drivers or electricians, etc. in the scale of Rs. 330-495. Others assigned to the residence of Judges, are at least entitled to be paid the scale of Rs. 305-390 and shall be paid in that scale. It is made clear that the petitioners and other daily wage labourers will be paid according to the aforesaid directions with effect from the date of the filing of the writ petition. Those who may have been employed subsequently, from the date they have been assigned duties. 10. The petitioners are also entitled to costs of Rs. 500/-. Dhavan, J.: - Arguments in this case were heard at length in the Court and 10th of March, 1986, was fixed for delivery of judgment. The judgment was ready for delivery as scheduled but since one of us (Hon. K.N. Singh, J.) is leaving for Delhi on account of his elevation to the Supreme Court, the case was taken up for delivery of judgment today with the prior permission of the Acting Chief Justice after informing the counsel for the parties. The judgment has been delivered today at the residence of K.N. Singh, J. in the presence of the petitioners' counsel and the Standing Counsel.