JUDGMENT APARESH KUMAR SINGH, J. 1. Heard counsel for the parties. 2. The writ application has been preferred by the petitioners, who are 58 in numbers, said to be working on contractual basis since 2008 or 2010 who are asking for an increase in their contractual remuneration to the tune of Rs. 14,748/- per month since July 2013 on the strength of a resolution of the Finance Department contained in Annexure-9 dated 20th April 2013 and Annexure-10 dated 29th May 2013. They have also raised a grievance that from April 2013 onwards, earlier remuneration @ Rs. 8,750/- per month is also in arrears and as a matter of fact, since July 2013, they have not been paid any amount at all. 3. The basic facts which are necessary to be noticed in order to arrive at a determination of question raised in the present writ application, are being narrated herein-under: These petitioners were engaged on contractual basis in different offices of the Commercial Taxes Department, Government of Jharkhand as Data Entry Operator by the competent authority in the years 2008 and 2010 on a monthly remuneration of Rs. 5,100/- per month. Petitioners no. 1 to 29 are said to be working since 2008 pursuant to the such appointment; petitioners no. 30 to 58 are working since 2010 as Data Entry Operator in different offices of the Commercial Taxes Department. Their period of engagement was extended from time to time and are stated to be continuing to discharge their duties. One such letter of extension of services of these Data Entry Operators for the period 01st April 2011 to 31st March 2012 is annexed as Annexure-6 dated 7th April 2011. Monthly contractual remuneration of these Data Entry Operators were increased to Rs. 8,750/- by Annexure-7 dated 4th July 2011 issued by the Secretary, Commercial Taxes Department. By Annexure-8 resolution dated 20th January 2012, a decision was taken to give the benefit of lump sum increase in the contractual remuneration of such persons engaged as Computer Operator/Data Entry Operator through outsourcing in Secretariat and its attached offices as also in other offices such as Treasury/Sub Treasury under the State Government. 4. By Annexure-8 resolution dated 20th January 2012, a decision was taken to give the benefit of lump sum increase in the contractual remuneration of such persons engaged as Computer Operator/Data Entry Operator through outsourcing in Secretariat and its attached offices as also in other offices such as Treasury/Sub Treasury under the State Government. 4. A perusal of Annexure-8 indicates that a demand was raised by such contractual employees engaged in Data Entry work in Secretariat and attached offices for increase in the contractual remuneration upon implementation of the 6th Pay Revision to the State Government employees. On consideration of the relevant aspect, a decision was taken by the competent authority conveyed through the Finance Department that on the basis of equal pay for equal work, similar remuneration be given to those Computer Operators engaged on contractual basis as aforesaid. Annexure-9 is another resolution dated 20th April 2013 which deals with the subject of increase of monthly contractual remuneration to such employees engaged in the offices of the State Government on contract basis in view of the increase in dearness allowance to the State Government employees. It also refers to an earlier resolution no. 965 dated 25th March 2009 of the Finance Department whereunder, the benefit of increase in contractual remuneration to such employees was given taking into account the admissible dearness allowance, medical allowance and transport allowance. The resolution at annexure-9 after referring to the earlier resolution dated 25th March 2009, takes into account that such demand were being raised by contractual employees engaged under the State for increase in dearness allowance from 22% which was earlier admissible, to 72%. Therefore, upon consideration of relevant aspect of the matter, a decision to increase such dearness allowance from 22% to 72% was taken by the said resolution dated 20th April 2013 in respect of the contractual employees engaged under the different offices of the State Government. The import of such resolution is that the monthly contractual remuneration of such persons should be calculated on the revised pay band and the grade pay of the post held along with 72% dearness allowance, medical allowance and transport allowance as are admissible. The amount so derived would be equivalent to their monthly contractual remuneration. Rest of the terms and conditions of the earlier resolution dated 25th March 2009 were to continue. The instant resolution was made effective from 01st April 2013. 5. The amount so derived would be equivalent to their monthly contractual remuneration. Rest of the terms and conditions of the earlier resolution dated 25th March 2009 were to continue. The instant resolution was made effective from 01st April 2013. 5. Incidentally, upon issuance of the said resolution, it appears from the stand taken by the respondent that the contractual employees engaged in different circles on outsourcing basis like the petitioners under the Commercial Taxes Department, were asked to submit an undertaking in the nature of an affidavit by letter dated 3rd October 2013 (Annexure-E) conveyed by the Additional commissioner, Commercial Taxes Department to all Deputy Commissioners and In-charge of different circles of the Commercial Taxes Department. The affidavit is also enclosed along with Annexure-E to the counter affidavit. Para-2 of the said affidavit indicates that the concerned employees were required to undertake that they will not claim any right to regularization, permanence or absorption on account of rendering any service in the Department. Para-3 of the said affidavit, at the same time, required that they undertake that they shall only be entitled to receive a consolidated amount of Rs. 8,750/ per month and shall not present any claim whatsoever on any other account against the department. However, petitioners admittedly have not given any such undertaking. 6. The petitioners' stand is that the terms and conditions indicated at para-3 of such affidavit, is wholly arbitrary and amounts to coercing them to enter into an unconscionable bargain with the respondent State by freezing the amount of remuneration at a fixed level throughout their tenure of engagement. This according to them, cannot be countenanced in the eye of law as well as on fact in view of the continuous increase in the cost of living index and consequent increase of Dearness Allowance to all categories of employees under the State Government. 7. It appears that thereafter, another resolution was issued by the Finance Department on 29th May 2013 (Annexure-10 to the writ petition) and (Annexure-F to the counter affidavit). Much reliance has been placed by the respondent State on the said resolution to say that the benefit of the revision in the monthly contractual remuneration to such Computer Operators/Data Entry Operators were made only in respect of such contractual employees who were engaged in Secretariat or its attached offices. Much reliance has been placed by the respondent State on the said resolution to say that the benefit of the revision in the monthly contractual remuneration to such Computer Operators/Data Entry Operators were made only in respect of such contractual employees who were engaged in Secretariat or its attached offices. A perusal of the said resolution indicates that earlier, because of Finance Department Resolution dated 20th January 2012, such employees were entitled to a particular lump-sum payment being in different pay band as indicated thereunder. Therefore, on consideration of demands raised by such contractual employees engaged in Secretariat and attached offices and all aspect of the matter, the decision has been taken to make payment of lump sum amount in respect of different categories of contractual employees such as Computer Operator/Data Entry Operator/Assistant Programmer/Programmer who are to be paid at the rate shown i.e. Rs. 14,700/-, 24,800/- and 25,900/- respectively. Based upon this resolution, the respondent State have contested the claim of the present petitioners who admittedly are not working in any offices of the Secretariat or its attached offices, but of course are working on contractual basis in different offices under the State Government i.e. The Commercial Taxes Department. 8. Heard counsel for the parties and gone through the relevant materials on record. The factual road map of the case of the parties have been indicated in earlier paragraph of the instant judgment which are not in dispute. The dispute is in respect of application of the resolution dated 20th April 2013 to the petitioners on the ground that such resolution stands superceeded in view of the resolution dated 29th May 2013 (Annexure-10). Moreover, the Resolution dated 29th May 2013 is not applicable to the petitioners as they are not engaged in the Secretariat or its attached offices. Besides that, an additional ground has been taken by the respondent State that these petitioners have failed to submit an undertaking in the required format in the form of affidavit, as has been evidenced at Annexure-E to the counter affidavit herein-above earlier. Therefore, according to the respondents, contractual engagement of such persons whose services have been extended from time to time annually, are only entitled to a fixed monthly remuneration of Rs. 8,750/- per month and not beyond that. Therefore, according to the respondents, contractual engagement of such persons whose services have been extended from time to time annually, are only entitled to a fixed monthly remuneration of Rs. 8,750/- per month and not beyond that. A perusal of Annexure-9 in the aforesaid factual matrix indicates that a conscious decision has been taken by the State Government in respect of contractual employees engaged in the various offices of the State to increase their dearness allowance from 22%, as admissible under the earlier resolution dated 25th March 2009, to 72%. Para-5 of the resolution dated 20th April 2013 clearly indicates the manner in which computation of dearness allowance along with the admissible medical allowance and transport allowance is to be made for payment of monthly remuneration to such employees. Such resolution on the face of it, appears to apply to all such contractual employees engaged under the State Government. 9. A perusal of Annexure-10 indicates that the said resolution is confined to such contractual employees who were engaged in Secretariat and its attached offices on the post of Programmer/Assistant Programmer/Computer Operator/Data Entry Operator whose lump-sum remuneration were increased in the manner indicated earlier to a sum of Rs. 25,900, Rs. 24,800/- and 14,700/- respectively. A perusal of the instant resolution however does not indicate that the earlier resolution of 20th April 2013 which was general in nature to all contractual employees engaged under the respondent State, has been superceeded. On the point of law, it cannot be disputed that the State has the power to issue executive instruction and subordinate legislation under the executive power of the State superceeding the earlier resolution/Executive Instruction issued by it. However, Annexure-10 dated 29th May 2013 does not appear to supercede the earlier resolution of 20th April 2013 (Annexure-9). 10. When tested on the lines of reasonableness also, such a plea cannot be countenanced as the proportionate and consequential increase in the cost of living index affects each section of the society and not only to those who are regular employee of the State but also those who are engaged on contractual basis to serve under the State Government as also other private bodies. The increase in dearness allowance has been made applicable to the State Government employees from time to time as per the increase in the cost of living index, after implementation of the 6th Pay Revision as well. The increase in dearness allowance has been made applicable to the State Government employees from time to time as per the increase in the cost of living index, after implementation of the 6th Pay Revision as well. Apparently, on the demands of the contractual employees, the State Government taking a humane view of the matter, chose to increase the admissible dearness allowance to the contractual employees engaged within the State at the rate of 72% from the earlier 22% dearness allowance. The resolution at Annexure-10 may be applicable to those contractual employees engaged on the post of Programmer/Assistant Programmer/Computer Operator/Data Entry Operator upon considerations which may be germane to the State for taking such a decision. However, the resolution dated 29th May 2013 does not appear in any manner to supercede the resolution of 20th April 2013. It is the case of the petitioners that if the resolution of 20th April 2013 is itself implemented, that would amount to increase in their monthly remuneration from Rs. 8,750/- to Rs. 14,748/-, as per the computation shown at para-13 and 14 of the writ petition. 11. Respondent State after issuance of the resolution at Annexure-10 dated 29th May 2013, seems to have adopted a stand that the contractual employees who are not engaged in the offices of Secretariat or its attached offices, are not entitled to any increase in remuneration beyond Rs. 8,750/- which they were getting. This appears to be unreasonable and arbitrary as well and moreover, not in consonance with the resolution of the State Government itself as contained in Annexure-9 dated 20th April 2013. On the other hand, perusal of the undertaking in the form of an affidavit which is Annexure-E to the counter affidavit shows that the condition as contained in para-3 is wholly unreasonable and an arbitrary clause which hits Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It in essence compels such a contractual employee to accept that his contractual remuneration would be frozen for the entire tenure, even though there may be a general increase in the cost of living index and consequent increase in the dearness allowance admissible not only to the permanent State Government employees, but also to those who are contractual employees engaged in the other offices like Secretariat and its attached offices under the same State Government. These contractual employees were initially engaged on monthly remuneration of Rs 5,100/- in the years 2008 or 2010 which was increased to Rs. 8,750/- as per Annexure-7 dated 4th July 2011. The State Government after considering the necessity to increase such contractual remuneration with 72% D.A by resolution dated 20th April 2013 (Annexure-9) and also implementing such increase to contractual employees engaged in its Secretariat and attached offices by Annexure-10 resolution dated 29th May 2013 seems to have suddenly backed out from honouring its own commitments for inexplicable reasons. Petitioners therefore could not have been compelled to enter into such an unconscionable bargain to surrender their valuable rights. The minimum wages notified under the Minimum Wages Act are also subject to increase as per increase in cost of living index. The approach of the State therefore appears to be discriminatory as well. 12. Principles laid down in the case of Central Inland Water Transport Corporation Limited and another vs. Brojo Nath Ganguly and another, (1986) 3 Supreme Court Cases 156, would fairly apply in respect of such a condition imposed by the respondent State by way of an undertaking. The erudite opinion of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as rendered by Madon, J at Para-89 of the judgment is being quoted here-under: “89. Should then our courts not advance with the times? Should they still continue to cling to outmoded concepts and outworn ideologies? Should we not adjust our thinking caps to match the fashion of the day? Should all jurisprudential development pass us by, leaving us floundering in the sloughs of 19th century theories? Should the strong be permitted to push the weak to the wall? Should they be allowed to ride roughshod over the weak? Should the courts sit back and watch supinely while the strong trample underfoot the rights of the weak? We have a Constitution for our country. Our judges are bound by their oath to “uphold the Constitution and the laws”. The Constitution was enacted to secure to all the citizens of this country social and economic justice. Article 14 of the Constitution guarantees to all persons equality before the law and the equal protection of the laws. We have a Constitution for our country. Our judges are bound by their oath to “uphold the Constitution and the laws”. The Constitution was enacted to secure to all the citizens of this country social and economic justice. Article 14 of the Constitution guarantees to all persons equality before the law and the equal protection of the laws. The principle deducible from the above discussions on this part of the case is in consonance with right and reason, intended to secure social and economic justice and conforms to the mandate of the great equality clause in Article 14. This principle is that the courts will not enforce and will, when called upon to do so, strike down an unfair and unreasonable contract, or an unfair and unreasonable clause in a contract, entered into between parties who are not equal in bargaining power. It is difficult to give an exhaustive list of all bargains of this type. No court can visualize the different situations which can arise in the affairs of men. One can only attempt to give some illustrations. For instance, the above principle will apply where the inequality of bargaining power is the result of the great disparity in the economic strength of the contracting parties. It will apply where the inequality is the result of circumstances, whether of the creation of the parties or not. It will apply to situations in which the weaker party is in a position in which he can obtain goods or services or means of livelihood only upon the terms imposed by the stronger party or go without them. It will also apply where a man has no choice, or rather no meaningful choice, but to give his assent to a contract or to sign on the dotted line in a prescribed or standard form or to accept a set of rules as part of the contract, however unfair, unreasonable and unconscionable a clause in that contract or form or rules may be. This principle, however, will not apply where the bargaining power of the contracting parties is equal or almost equal. This principle may not apply where both parties are businessmen and the contract is a commercial transaction. This principle, however, will not apply where the bargaining power of the contracting parties is equal or almost equal. This principle may not apply where both parties are businessmen and the contract is a commercial transaction. In today’s complex world of giant corporations with their vast infra-structural organizations and with the State through its instrumentalities and agencies entering into almost every branch of industry and commerce, there can be myriad situations which result in unfair and unreasonable bargains between parties possessing wholly disproportionate and unequal bargaining power. These cases can neither be enumerated nor fully illustrated. The court must judge each case on its own facts and circumstances.” 13. One can understand that the contractual employee can be asked to give an undertaking that he would not claim any regularization, permanence or absorption on account of rendering any contractual service, given the clear law settled on that position. In matters of public employment and that too on regular basis, the same is permissible after giving equal opportunity to all eligible persons who seek such employment, as per the mandate of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. But the other conditions as contained in para-3 does not seem to sustain in the eye of law as well as on facts. Counsel for the petitioners in this regard has relied upon a judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Jharkhand another vs. Harihar Yadav and others, Civil Appeal No. 10515 of 2013 rendered on 22nd November 2013. Therefore, from the facts as discussed herein-above, the stand of the respondent State to refuse any increase in the monthly contractual remuneration to these petitioners and other similarly situated contractual employees within the State, does not seem to hold good in the eye of law as well as on facts, more so in view of their own resolution dated 20th April 2013 (Annexure-9). 14. Therefore, respondents are directed to release the admissible contractual remuneration to these petitioners in line with the principles decided in Annexure-9 resolution dated 20th April 2013 from the date it is made effective, of course, on being satisfied that they have been discharging their duties on the said post. Any arrears of such admissible contractual remuneration should also be paid to the petitioners within a reasonable time, preferably twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Any arrears of such admissible contractual remuneration should also be paid to the petitioners within a reasonable time, preferably twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The writ petition is accordingly allowed in the aforesaid manner.