Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 285 (UTT)

ATOL SINGH v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

2012-06-15

TARUN AGARWALA

body2012
JUDGMENT Hon’ble Tarun Agarwala, J. The petitioner is a ‘class-Iv employee working on daily wage basis in Tones Forest Division, Purola Range, Uttarkashi. According to the petitioner, he is working’ since 1st April, 1986 but according to the respondents, the petitioner was engaged from April, 1996. The fact remains that the petitioner is working continuously. A large number of similarly situated daily wage employees filed writ petitions before the Allahabad High Court which was decided by the leading case in Putti Lal wherein the Allahabad High Court directed the respondents to regularize the services of the daily wagers and also pay minimum of pay scale. The State of U.P. filed a Special Leave Petition being Civil Appeal No. 3634 of 1998, State of U.P. Vs. Putti Lal which was disposed of by an order dated 21st February, 2002. The Supreme Court held that since the daily wager was discharging similar duties as those in the regular employment, the daily wagers are entitled to receive the minimum of pay scale on the principle of ‘equal pay for equal work’ and, accordingly, held that the daily wagers would be entitled to draw the minimum of pay scale until their services are regularized and given regular scale of pay. 2. On the basis of the decision of the Supreme Court in Putti Lal’s case (Supra), the petitioner filed a Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 14789 of 1999 which upon the creation of the State of Uttarakhand was transferred to this Court and it was renumbered as Writ Petition No. 2255 (S/8) of 2001. In this petition, the petitioner was granted an interim order dated 08.04.1999 directing the respondents to pay the minimum scale of salary which was being paid to the regular appointed class-IV employees. Based on the interim order dated 08.04.1999, the petitioner started receiving the minimum scale of salary. Subsequently, the writ petition was disposed of by an order dated 5th September, 2003 in terms of the decision of the Supreme Court. The respondents were directed to consider his case for regularization and pay the minimum of pay scale till such time as his services was not regularized. 3. It is further stated that inspite of the order of the Court and the decision of the Supreme Court in Putti Lal case, the petitioner was paid the minimum of the pay scale till 2002 and, thereafter, it was stopped. 3. It is further stated that inspite of the order of the Court and the decision of the Supreme Court in Putti Lal case, the petitioner was paid the minimum of the pay scale till 2002 and, thereafter, it was stopped. From a perusal of the writ petition, the Court finds that the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, Dehradun by an order dated 9th November, 2009 directed all the concerned Forest Officers to pay minimum of pay scale @ Rs. 4,440/- p.m. to the daily wagers in light of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Putti Lal (Supra). Pursuant to the said direction, the petitioner started receiving the minimum pay scale again but subsequently the Division Forest Officer, Tones Forest Division, Purola, District Uttarkashi issued an order dated 25th May, 2010 directing all the Range Offices to pay the daily wagers @ Rs. 3,514/- p.m. The petitioner made a representation holding that the reduction in the pay scale was wholly illegal and that the amount so received should not be. deducted. It is alleged that the excess amount paid was subsequently deducted from the salary. 4. On 5th July, 2010, the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, Dehradun issued an order indicating that those daily wager who are covered by the order of the Supreme Court dated 21st February, 2002 and who are working in their department continuously and have completed ten years or more service upto 1st May, 2001 are entitled to be paid the minimum. of the pay scale while others would be granted . a lower pay. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the said order, has filed the present writ petition praying for its quashing and also praying that the respondents be commanded to pay the minimum of pay scale to the petitioner. 5. The respondents have filed a counter affidavit admitting that daily wagers who are covered by the decision of the Supreme Court in Putti Lal (Supra) are liable to be paid the minimum of pay scale till such time as they are regularized. The respondents, however, have taken a strange stand that only those daily wagers would be paid the minimum of pay scale who are continuously working in the service of the respondents and who have completed ten years of continuous service as on 1st May, 2001. The respondents, however, have taken a strange stand that only those daily wagers would be paid the minimum of pay scale who are continuously working in the service of the respondents and who have completed ten years of continuous service as on 1st May, 2001. The respondents contended that since the petitioner had not completed ten years of service upto 1st May, 2001, the petitioner was not entitled to be paid the minimum pay scale. In this regard, the respondents have justified the order of respondent No.2 dated ‘Sth July, 2010. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the Brief Holder for the respondents, the Court finds that the stand taken by the respondents is patently illegal. The Supreme Court in clear terms had directed that a daily wager would be entitled to the minimum of pay scale until his services are regularized. For facility, the extract of the order of the Supreme Court in the case of Putti Lal (Supra) is quoted herein:- “So far as the salary is concerned, as we have stated in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh, a daily wager in the State of Uttaranchal would be also entitled to the minimum of the pay scale as is available to his counter part in the Government until his services are regularized and he is given regular scale of pay.” 7. Supreme Court did not place any embargo that a daily wager should work continuously for ten years upto 01/05/2001. Such imposition of a condition by the respondents as per their order dated 5th July, 2010 is patently illegal and against the clear direction of the Supreme Court in Putti Lal’s case. Consequently, the order dated 5th July, 2010 cannot be sustained and is quashed. 8. There is another aspect of the matter. In the case of the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 2255 (S/S) of 2001, an interim order dated 08.04;1999 was passed directing the respondents to pay the minimum scale of pay which was being paid to the regularly appointed class-IV employees. Subsequently, the writ petition was disposed of by an order dated 05/09/2003 directing the respondents to regularize his services, if he was covered by the decision of the Supreme Court in Putti Lal’s case. The Supreme Court also directed the respondents to pay the minimum of pay scale to the petitioner till his services were regularized. Subsequently, the writ petition was disposed of by an order dated 05/09/2003 directing the respondents to regularize his services, if he was covered by the decision of the Supreme Court in Putti Lal’s case. The Supreme Court also directed the respondents to pay the minimum of pay scale to the petitioner till his services were regularized. This order apparently was not complied with since the minimum of pay scale was stopped to the petitioner from 2002 onwards. In the opinion of the Court, the petitioner is working as a daily wager continuously which is admitted by the respondents. The petitioner’s case is covered by the decision of the Supreme Court in Putti Lal’s case and is entitled to be paid the minimum scale of pay. 9. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 5th July, 2010 is quashed and a writ of mandamus is issued commanding the respondents to pay the minimum of pay scale to the petitioner as per the letter of respondent No.2 dated 9th November, 2009. Arears, if any, should be paid within three months from the date of the production of a certified copy of the order.