Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1987 (ALL)

SHIV KUMAR SINGH v. STATE OF U. P.

2016-05-23

DEVENDRA KUMAR ARORA

body2016
JUDGMENT Hon’ble Dr. Devendra Kumar Arora, J.—Heard Mr. D.N. Tripathi, learned Counsel for petitioners, Mr. Manik Sinha, learned Counsel for the Narendra Deo University of Agriculture & Technology and Mr. Prashant Jaiswal, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State. 2. Petitioners have approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order dated 17.12.2009 passed by the opposite party No. 1-Secretary, Agriculture, Education & Research, Lucknow, contained in Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition, whereby the Secretary, Agriculture, Education & Research, Lucknow, while examining the representation of the petitioner and going through the order dated 19.11.2009 passed in Contempt Petition No. 661 (C) of 2004 :Deo Narain Misra and 33 others v. M. Deoraj Special Secretary, Government of U.P., Lucknow Agriculture, rejected the claim of the petitioners for payment of minimum of pay-scale as per the recommendation of 6th Pay Commission on the ground that petitioners are not working against any post in the University and they are being paid Rs. 100/- per day as daily wager as per Notification issued by the Labour Department of the State Government. 3. According to the petitioners, petitioners Nos. 1, 2 and 3 were engaged as Lineman in the University on 16.6.1987, 26.6.1987 and 16.6.1987, respectively; petitioners Nos. 4 and 5 as Pump Operator on 1.9.1990, 3.1.1989, respectively; petitioners No. 6 as Mate Supervisor on 1.2.1986; petitioner No. 7 as Beldar on 11.9.1987; and petitioner No. 8 as Mate on 1.2.1987. 4. Petitioners alongwith similarly situated persons had earlier approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by filing writ petition No. 4257 (SS) of 1994, praying therein for regularization of their services as they have been working in the University for the last ten years or more. This writ petition was clubbed with the writ petitions filed by the similarly situated persons, leading writ petition No. 264 (SS) of 2000 : Ajay Kumar Singh v. The Chancellor, Narendra Dev University Agriculture & Technology and others. This writ petition was clubbed with the writ petitions filed by the similarly situated persons, leading writ petition No. 264 (SS) of 2000 : Ajay Kumar Singh v. The Chancellor, Narendra Dev University Agriculture & Technology and others. This Court, vide common judgment and order dated 23.7.2002, disposed of the bunch of writ petitions with the following directives : “the University shall frame a scheme for regularization of Class III & IV employees, who are working on daily wage basis in a phased manner within a period of four months and submit the same before the State Government, who will consider and take a decision on the scheme submitted by the University within four months thereafter and the opposite parties shall consider the case of the petitioners for regularization, in accordance with law, as soon as the posts are sanctioned by the State Government. Till the services of the petitioners are not regularized, the opposite parties shall not make any fresh recruitment on regular basis either on Class III or Class IV posts and shall pay the minimum of the pay-scale of the respective posts on which the petitioners are working. The benefit of this order shall be given only to those daily wage employees who are working at present. In the circumstance, there shall be no order as to costs.” 5. Not being satisfied with the aforesaid judgment and order dated 23rd July, 2002, the State authorities had challenged the same by filing Special Appeal No. 395 of 2003 : State of U.P. v. Merai and others. A Division Bench of this Court, vide judgment and order dated 25.11.2003, dismissed the special appeal. Thereafter, neither State authorities nor the University authorities had challenged the judgment and order dated 25.11.2003 before the higher forum, therefore, the same has attained finality. 6. A Division Bench of this Court, vide judgment and order dated 25.11.2003, dismissed the special appeal. Thereafter, neither State authorities nor the University authorities had challenged the judgment and order dated 25.11.2003 before the higher forum, therefore, the same has attained finality. 6. According to the petitioners, though judgment and order dated 23.7.2002 is binding upon the opposite parties after dismissal of the Special Appeal vide judgment and order dated 25.11.2003 as the same has not been challenged before higher forum but the judgment and order dated 23.7.2002 passed in writ petition No. 4257 (SS) of 1994 has not been complied with by the opposite parties, therefore, the petitioners had approached this Court under contempt jurisdiction by filing Contempt Petition No. 661 of 2004 : Deo Narain Misra and 33 others v. M. Deoraj Special Secretary, Government of U.P., wherein on 12.11.2009, one Ram Vachan Ram, Administrative Officer of the University appeared and had stated that under the orders of the Court, 21 days’ work is being provided to the petitioners and they are being paid minimum pay-scale at the rate of Rs. 2550/-. Appreciating the aforesaid submission of Administrative Officer of the University, following order has been passed on 12.11.2009 : “In compliance of the Court’s order the Administrative Officer Ram Vachan Ram is present before this Court. He has stated that under the orders of the Court 21 days’ work is being provided to the petitioners and they are being paid minimum pay-scale @ Rs. 2550/-. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since there is no order of the Court that only 21 days’ work should be allotted, hence, this is flouting of the Court’s order and the petitioner may be allowed to work on all the working days’ as there are number of clear working days in every month. Second argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is that minimum of pay-scale has been revised from Rs. 2550 to 4400-6050. Accordingly, the opposite parties are directed to give work to the petitioners as many clear working days are available in a month and pay the minimum revised pay-scale @ Rs. 4400-6050 within a month from today. In case the orders are not complied within the above stipulated time the Vice-Chancellor shall appear in person before this Court on 23rd December 2009 to explain why the orders of this Court have not been complied with. 4400-6050 within a month from today. In case the orders are not complied within the above stipulated time the Vice-Chancellor shall appear in person before this Court on 23rd December 2009 to explain why the orders of this Court have not been complied with. List this case on 23rd December 2009. It has been stated by the Administrative Officer that the Finance Officer that the financial sanction has to come from the State Government and the hands of the opposite party are very tight and further the Special Secretary, U.P. Government while appearing before the Court had assured that the financial sanction is required by the Registrar shall be provided to the institution. Since he has failed to do so the University is in penury situation. At this juncture the Chief Standing Counsel who is present in the Court informed the Court that now there is a separate department looking after the agricultural education and perhaps the Secretary, Agricultural Education is not even aware about this contempt petition. Under the circumstances the petitioners are given the liberty to make a representation to the Secretary, Agricultural Education within a period of one week from today who shall also decide the representation within a month.” 7. Pursuant to the order dated 12.11.2009, the petitioners had moved a representation dated 23.11.2009 to the State Government, requesting therein that they be paid Rs. 4400/- which is the lowest pay-scale of the revised pay-scale. Thereafter, in compliance of the order dated 12.11.2009, the Secretary, Agriculture, Education & Research, Lucknow, examined the claim of the petitioners and after going through the information given by the University authorities, rejected the petitioners’ representation dated 23.11.2009 on the ground that since as per information furnished by the University, petitioners were not working against any post and were only permitted to work as daily wager and were paid Rs. 100/- per day as per the notification issued by the Labour Department of the State Government. In the meantime, the contempt petition preferred by the petitioners was dismissed vide judgment and order dated 2.4.2010 with the following observations: “Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the opposite parties as well as learned Standing Counsel. This Court vide judgment and order dated 16.4.2002 directed the opposite parties to frame a scheme for regularisation. In the meantime, the contempt petition preferred by the petitioners was dismissed vide judgment and order dated 2.4.2010 with the following observations: “Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the opposite parties as well as learned Standing Counsel. This Court vide judgment and order dated 16.4.2002 directed the opposite parties to frame a scheme for regularisation. The said order was subjected to challenge in Special Appeal No. 395 of 2003, which approved the judgment of the Hon’ble Single Judge. Thereafter, opposite parties proceeded to frame a scheme for regularisation. Learned counsel for the University states that in pursuance to the order of this Court scheme has been framed for regularisation as and when the vacancies are sanctioned by the State Government the petitioners and others belonging to the category of petitioners are being regularised against the sanctioned posts. He further states that even otherwise the petitioners are continuously engaged on daily wage basis and they are continuously working on daily wage basis and they have been paid the minimum pay-scale of Rs. 2550/-, but after the revision daily wage emoluments of the workers/casual labours was enhanced to Rs. 100/- per day the amount, which they were getting was less than the amount, which would be otherwise admissible to them at Rs. 100/- per day basis. Since the scheme for regularisation has been framed and process for regularisation is going on, therefore, in the opinion of the Court the order of this Court has been substantially complied with. Hence, no comtempt is made out against the opposite parties. Contempt petition is dismissed. Notices issued are discharged.” 8. After dismissal of the contempt petition, petitioners have filed the present writ petition, challenging the order dated 17.12.2009 passed by the Secretary, Agriculture, Education & Research, Lucknow. 9. Mr. Hence, no comtempt is made out against the opposite parties. Contempt petition is dismissed. Notices issued are discharged.” 8. After dismissal of the contempt petition, petitioners have filed the present writ petition, challenging the order dated 17.12.2009 passed by the Secretary, Agriculture, Education & Research, Lucknow. 9. Mr. D.N. Tripathi, learned Counsel for petitioners has submitted that the question of engagement of the petitioners has already been adjudicated and decided by this Court vide judgment and order dated 23.7.2002 passed in writ petition No. 4257 (S/S) of 1994, wherein the opposite parties were directed to reguarlize the services of the petitioners by framing a regularization scheme and till the services of the petitioners are not regularize, the opposite parties were restrained to make any fresh recruitment on regular basis either on Class-III post or Class-IV post and further directed to pay the minimum of the pay-scale of the respective post on which petitioners are working. It was also directed that the benefit of the order dated 23.7.2002 shall also be given to those daily wage employees who are working at present. The said judgment and order dated 23.7.2002 has also been affirmed by a Division Bench of this Court in Special Appeal No. 395 of 2003. 10. Elaborating his submission, learned Counsel for petitioners has contended that when the judgment and order dated 23.7.2002 was passed by this Court, petitioners were working and they are still working but neither their services have been regularized nor they have been paid the revised minimum of the pay-scale till date. He submitted that the order passed by this Court is having statutory force of law and is binding upon them as per the principles of res judicata. He submitted that the minimum of the pay-scale i.e. Rs. 2550/- are being paid to petitioners since November, 2014 vide order dated 31.1.2014 passed by the Director, Administration & Monitoring. 11. Counsel for petitioners has next submitted that in pursuance of the order 23.7.2002 passed by this Court, University has framed a regularization scheme, which was duly approved by the State Government and under the garb of the regularization scheme, number of daily wagers have been regularized and number of daily wagers are being paid the minimum of the pay-scale. 12. Counsel for petitioners has next submitted that in pursuance of the order 23.7.2002 passed by this Court, University has framed a regularization scheme, which was duly approved by the State Government and under the garb of the regularization scheme, number of daily wagers have been regularized and number of daily wagers are being paid the minimum of the pay-scale. 12. Lastly, Counsel for petitioners has submitted that during the pendency of the present writ petition, the University authorities passed an order dated 31.1.2014, whereby the minimum of the regular pay-scale as per Vth Pay Commission Report has been paid to petitioners in pursuance of earlier order dated 24.10.2001 passed by the University authorities itself. He also informed that in an identical matter i.e. in writ petition No. 5979 of 2015 (S/S), this Court has passed an ad interim order dated 17.11.2015, directing the opposite parties to pay the minimum of the regular pay-scale to the petitioners of that writ petition as per the recommendation of the VI Pay Commission. Therefore, petitioner’s claim for payment of minimum pay-scale has wrongly been rejected by the opposite party No. 1 and the present writ petition is liable to be allowed. 13. Per contra, Mr. Prashant Jaiswal, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel has submitted that in compliance of the order dated 12.11.2009 passed in Contempt Petition No. 661 of 2004, the representation of petitioners was duly considered and rejected vide order dated 17.12.2009 by a speaking and reasoned order. He further submitted that in the impugned order dated 17.12.2009, it is clearly mentioned that that petitioners were not working against any sanctioned post and they are getting wages regularly under law, therefore, petitioners are not entitled to get the benefit of VI Pay Commission recommendation i.e. the pay-scale of Rs. 4400-8050 of Class IV post. 14. Mr. Jaiswal has further submitted that for regularization of the daily wager Labourer of the University, regularization rules have been framed by the University and on availability of the posts and fulfilling the eligibility criteria, the case of the petitioners would be considered for regularization under law. 4400-8050 of Class IV post. 14. Mr. Jaiswal has further submitted that for regularization of the daily wager Labourer of the University, regularization rules have been framed by the University and on availability of the posts and fulfilling the eligibility criteria, the case of the petitioners would be considered for regularization under law. He further submitted that Contempt Petition No. 661 of 2004 was dismissed vide order dated 2.4.2010 on appreciating the fact that in pursuance of the order dated 29.11.2000, the University has framed a scheme for regularization and as and when the vacancies are sanctioned by the State Government, the petitioners and others belonging to the category of the petitioners would be regularized against the sanctioned posts. Therefore, the petitioner’s claim has rightly been rejected by the impugned order. 15. Mr. Manik Sinha, learned Counsel for the University has raised various objections with regards to the maintainability of the writ petition and submitted that petitioners were earlier getting Rs. 100/- per day, which has subsequently been revised to Rs. 120/- per day and now the State Government has revised the same to Rs. 140/- per day. He submitted that the petitioners are getting the wages under the Minimum of Wages Act, 1948. 16. Mr. Manik Sinha has further contended that the daily wagers are working as Farm Labourers like Mate, Beldar, Supervisor, and Farm Pump Operator. All these classes are relating to farming and agricultural work, therefore, such labourers are governed by Part II of the Schedule of the Minimum of Wages Act, 1948. 17. Counsel for the University has next contended that the petitioners have not annexed their appointment orders because they were never given any appointment order but they were engaged as daily wagers orally. He submitted that no advertisement was ever issued nor they were brought through employment exchange. His submission is that petitioners are neither working in Class-IV post nor against any sanctioned posts or vacant posts but they are working only on daily wage basis. There is no master servant relationship between the University and the petitioners. Therefore, petitioners have no right to claim the pay-scale on the basis of recommendation of the VI Pay Commission Report. Thus, present writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 18. I have heard rival submissions of the learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the record. 19. There is no master servant relationship between the University and the petitioners. Therefore, petitioners have no right to claim the pay-scale on the basis of recommendation of the VI Pay Commission Report. Thus, present writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 18. I have heard rival submissions of the learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the record. 19. Admittedly, petitioners had earlier approached this Court by means of writ petition No. 4257 (S/S) of 1994, assailing inaction of the University in not regularizing their services even after rendering more than ten years satisfactory services as daily wager. The said writ petition was clubbed together with the writ petitions filed by the similarly situated persons, the leading writ petition No. 264 (SS) of 2000 : Ajay Kumar Singh v. The Chancellor, Narendra Dev University, Agriculture & Technology and others. This Court, vide common judgment and order dated 23.7.2002, after hearing the parties, disposed of the writ petition with a direction to the University to frame a scheme for regularization of Class-III & IV daily wage employees in a phased manner within a period of four months and submit the same before the State Government and the State Government was required to consider and take a decision on the scheme submitted by the University within next four months. It was also directed that as soon as the posts are sanctioned by the State Government, University should consider the case of the petitioners for regularization, in accordance with law and till regularization of the services of the petitioners, the opposite parties were restrained from making any fresh recruitment on regular basis either on Class-III or Class IV posts and were directed to pay the minimum of the pay-scale of the respective posts on which the petitioners are working. It was also directed that the benefit of the order shall be given only to those daily wage employees who are working at present. 20. It appears that instead of complying the judgment and order dated 23.7.2002, the State Authorities had approached this Court by filing Special Appeal No. 395 of 2003 : State of U.P. v. Merai and others, challenging the judgment and order dated 23.7.2002. A Division Bench of this Court, vide judgment and order dated 25.11.2003, dismissed the special appeal. 20. It appears that instead of complying the judgment and order dated 23.7.2002, the State Authorities had approached this Court by filing Special Appeal No. 395 of 2003 : State of U.P. v. Merai and others, challenging the judgment and order dated 23.7.2002. A Division Bench of this Court, vide judgment and order dated 25.11.2003, dismissed the special appeal. Thereafter, opposite parties have neither taken further steps for challenging the order dated 25.11.2003 before the higher Court nor complied with the judgment and order dated 23.7.2002 passed by the learned Single Judge, therefore, petitioners were constrained to approach this Court under contempt jurisdiction by means of Contempt Petition No. 661 of 2004, wherein on 12.11.2009, Administrative Officer Ram Vachan Ram had appeared before the Court and made a statement that under the orders of the Court, 21 days’ work is being provided to the petitioners and they are being paid minimum pay-scale at the rate of Rs. 2550/- and on this statement, the Court after appreciating the fact that there is no order of the Court that only 21 days’ work should be allotted to the petitioners, directed the opposite parties to give work to the petitioners as many clear working days are available in a month and pay the minimum revised pay-scale at the rate of Rs. 4400-6050/- within a month from the date of the order and thereafter, on the statement of Administrative Officer that the financial sanction has to come from the State Government and now there is a separate department looking after the agricultural education, the Court gave liberty to the petitioners to move a representation to the Secretary, Agricultural Education within a period of one week from the date of the order and the Secretary, Agricultural Education was required to decide the same within next one month. 21. Pursuant to the order dated 12.11.2009, the petitioners had approached the Secretary, Agricultural Education by moving a representation dated 23.11.2009, stating therein that they may be granted pay-scale of Rs. 4400-Rs.6050/- instead of Rs. 2550/-. The Secretary, Agricultural Education, after going through the information given by the Vice-Chancellor of the University vide letter dated 15.12.2009 that petitioners are not working against any posts and they are engaged for the work done by the daily wager and they are being paid Rs. 4400-Rs.6050/- instead of Rs. 2550/-. The Secretary, Agricultural Education, after going through the information given by the Vice-Chancellor of the University vide letter dated 15.12.2009 that petitioners are not working against any posts and they are engaged for the work done by the daily wager and they are being paid Rs. 100/- per day as per the notification issued by the Labour Department of the State Government, rejected the claim of the petitioners vide order dated 17.12.2009, which is impugned in the present writ petition. 22. A perusal of the impugned order dated 17.12.2009 reveals that the University authority, in its comments dated 15.12.2009, had not informed the Secretary, Agriculture, Education and Research, Lucknow, about the order dated 23.7.2002 passed by this Court in bunch of writ petitions, leading writ petition No. 264 (SS) of 2000 :Ajay Kumar Singh v. The Chancellor, Narendra Dev University, Agriculture & Technology and others, in which writ petition filed by the present writ petitioners and others i.e. writ petition No. 4257 (SS) of 1994 was also connected. It appears that the University authority had also not communicated to the Secretary about the dismissal of the Special Appeal No. 395 of 2003, which was filed against the judgment and order dated 23.7.2002. It has also not communicated to the Secretary that after dismissal of the special appeal No. 395 of 2003 vide judgment and order dated 25.11.2003, the same has not been challenged before the higher forum either by the University or by the State authorities. 23. A bare perusal of the judgment and order dated 23.7.2002, which has attained finality and is binding upon the opposite parties, shows that the benefit of consideration of regularization in a phased manner under the scheme of regularization to be framed has been extended only to such daily wagers who had been working at the relevant time. It is not in dispute that when the judgment and order dated 23.7.2002 was passed by this Court, present writ petitioners were working and are still working. 24. It is not in dispute that when the judgment and order dated 23.7.2002 was passed by this Court, present writ petitioners were working and are still working. 24. Now the stand of the University in the present writ petition that petitioners have not annexed their appointment orders in the present writ petition because they were never given any appointment order; they were not brought through employment exchange; and there is no master and servant relationship, are very surprising for the reasons that the University has itself stated in the counter-affidavit that no appointment order was ever issued in respect of the appointment of the petitioners on regular basis and the petitioners were engaged on daily wage basis without issuing any appointment order. Normally, the daily wager are being engaged on account of exigencies of work without issuing any advertisement, therefore, such daily wage engagement is neither advertised nor such persons are called from the employment exchange. The master and servant relations exists at the moment when the person(s) is/are engaged, may be, on daily wage and is/are being paid honourarium/salary/wages. Therefore, the stand of the University that there is no relations of master and servant with the petitioners is incorrect, specially when the engagement of the petitioners as daily wagers is continued for the last two decades and more. 25. At this juncture, it would be useful to point out that petitioners were engaged between 1986 to 1990 and are litigating for their rights to be paid minimum of the pay-scale as well as regularization in service since last two decades and more as the State Government has issued orders and framed rules for regularization of daily wagers from time to time but on account of lackadaisical attitude of the authorities, such a benefit was not extended to petitioners. The Apex Court, while considering the sufferings of such employees/daily wagers, noticed in the case in Delhi Transport Corporation v. D.T.C. Mazdoor Congress and others, 1991 Supplementary (Vol-I) SCC 600, which reads as under: “The employment under the public undertakings is a public employment and a public property. It is not only the undertakings but also the society which has a stake in their proper and efficient working. Both discipline and devotion are necessary for efficiency. To ensure both, the service conditions of those who work for them must be encouraging, certain and secured, and not vague and whimsical. It is not only the undertakings but also the society which has a stake in their proper and efficient working. Both discipline and devotion are necessary for efficiency. To ensure both, the service conditions of those who work for them must be encouraging, certain and secured, and not vague and whimsical. With capricious service conditions, both discipline and devotion are endangered, and efficiency is impaired.” The right to life includes right to livelihood. The right to livelihood therefore cannot hang on to the fancies of individuals in authority. The employment is not a bounty from them nor can its survival be at their mercy. Income is the foundation of many fundamental rights and when work is the sole source of income, the right to work becomes as fundamental. Fundamental rights can ill-afford to be consigned to the limbo of undefined premises and uncertain applications. That will be a mockery of them.” 26. There is need to minimize the scope of arbitrary use of power in all walks of like. It is all the more improper and undesirable to expose the precious rights like the rights of life, liberty and property to the vagaries of individual whims and fancies. It may be added that daily wagers are appointed in exigencies of work and not against any substantive vacancy after due selection process. 27. It may further be pointed out that a seven Judge Bench decision of the Apex Court in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India and another; AIR 1978 SC 597 , has held that reasonableness and non-arbitrariness is part of Article 14 of the Constitution. It follows that the Government must act in a reasonable and non-arbitrary manner otherwise Article 14 of the Constitution would be violated. 28. In Raja Ram Pandey v. The State of U.P.; 2009 (27) LCD 771, this Court held as under: “Right to consider for regularization is a fundamental right. However, when the regularization is done in order of seniority subject to fitness, then supersession of seniors on unfounded grounds is an arbitrary act and is also violative of Arts. 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. In case the petitioner was qualified for regularization, then denial of regularization by respondents against regular vacancy is a highly arbitrary act and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.” 29. 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. In case the petitioner was qualified for regularization, then denial of regularization by respondents against regular vacancy is a highly arbitrary act and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.” 29. In Ishwar Deen v. State of U.P., 2008(7) ADJ 588 (LB), this Court while considering provisions of Regularization Rules of 2001 held as under : “Though, the State has got right to fill up vacancies through direct recruitment but while doing so it shall always be necessary for the State to Exercise the statutory power conferred by the Rules (supra) to consider the cases of the employees, who are serving in the department like in the present case for about two deceased or more. Needless to say that the Rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India have got statutory force and one Rule 4(a) of the Rules enable the authorities to consider the cases of the employees for regularization who were appointed prior to 29.6.1991, then it shall always be incumbent upon the authorities to exercise power in just and fair manner to consider the case of the employees for regularisation.” 30. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the University, much emphasis has been laid upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi and others : 2006 (4) SCC 1 and on that basis, it has been averred that since the petitioners were engaged on daily wage basis, therefore, they have no right to be absorb in service. In Uma Devi (Supra), with respect to the payment of minimum salary at the lowest rate or minimum of the pay-scale of the corresponding scale of the post on which regular employees are working, the observations have been made by the Apex Court in para 46, which are reproduced as under : “46. In cases relating to service in the commercial taxes department, the High Court has directed that those engaged on daily wages, be paid wages equal to the salary and allowances that are being paid to the regular employees of their cadre in Government service, with effect from the dates from which they were respectively appointed. The objection taken was to the direction for payment from the dates of engagement. The objection taken was to the direction for payment from the dates of engagement. We find that the High Court had clearly gone wrong in directing that these employees be paid salary equal to the salary and allowances that are being paid to the regular employees of their cadre in Government service, with effect from the dates from which they were respectively engaged or appointed. It was not open to the High Court to impose such an obligation on the State when the very question before the High Court in the case was whether these employees were entitled to have equal pay for equal work so called and were entitled to any other benefit. They had also been engaged in the teeth of directions not to do so. We are, therefore, of the view that, at best, the Division Bench of the High Court should have directed the wages equal to the salary that are being paid to regular employees be paid to those, daily wage employees with effect from the date of its judgment. Hence, that part of the direction of the Division Bench is modified and it is directed that these daily wage earners be paid wages equal to the salary at the lowest grade of employees of their cadre in the Commercial Taxes Department in Government service, from the date of the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court. Since, they are only daily wage earners, there would be no question of other allowances being paid to them. In view of our conclusion, that Courts are not expected to issue directions for making such persons permanent in service, we set aside that part of the direction of the High Court directing the Government to consider their cases for regularization. We also notice that the High Court has not adverted to the aspect as to whether it was regularisation or it was giving permanency that was being directed by the High Court. In such a situation, the direction in that regard will stand deleted and the appeals filed by the State would stand allowed to that extent. If sanctioned posts are vacant (they are said to be vacant) the State will take immediate steps for filling those posts by a regular process of selection. But when regular recruitment is undertaken, the respondents in C.A. Nos. If sanctioned posts are vacant (they are said to be vacant) the State will take immediate steps for filling those posts by a regular process of selection. But when regular recruitment is undertaken, the respondents in C.A. Nos. 3595-3612 and those in the Commercial Taxes Department similarly situated, will be allowed to compete, waiving the age restriction imposed for the recruitment and giving some weightage for their having been engaged for work in the Department for a significant period of time. That would be the extent of the exercise of power by this Court under Article 142 of the Constitution to do justice to them.” Thus, the contention of the University with regards to denial of minmum of pay-scale in pursuance of the VI Pay Commission report, is not sustainable in view of the aforesaid observations of Uma Devi (supra). 31. It is apt to mention that University has tried to make distinction of the petitioners’ work and the persons who are working on Class-IV post in the University, by saying that petitioners are engaged on the posts like Mate, Farm Labourers, Beldar, Supervisor and Farm Pump Operators and all such labourers are governed by Part-II of the Schedule of the Minimum of Wages act, 1948, therefore, it cannot be said that petitioners are working on Class-IV posts. On repeated query, neither learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel nor learned Counsel for the University could demonstrate as to which type of employees are categorized as Class-IV employee. Apparently, all the workers ‘may be’ discharging any nature that is being done by the present writ petitioners, falls under the definition of Class-IV employees and such type of workers are also engaged in other department of the State Government, like P.W.D., Irrigation etc. Therefore, the stand of the University that petitioners do not fall under the category of Class-IV employee is misconceived. Even otherwise, it is not open for the University to somersault the stand earlier taken in bunch of writ petitions decided vide judgment and order dated 23.7.2002, which, of course, has attained finality. Therefore, the petitioners are entitled to get minimum of the pay-scale of the respective posts on which they are working in pursuance of the judgment and order dated 23.7.2002. 32. Therefore, the petitioners are entitled to get minimum of the pay-scale of the respective posts on which they are working in pursuance of the judgment and order dated 23.7.2002. 32. Undoubtedly, as per the judgment and order dated 23.7.2002, the benefit of consideration of regularization and payment at the minimum of the pay-scale on the respective posts has been provided only for such daily wagers who have been working for the last more than 10 years and are working presently also. It is also not in dispute that petitioners were engaged as daily wager sometime between 1986 to 1990 and they have been allowed to continue in the same capacity till date without any break. Therefore, it can well be presumed that the work does exist and that such daily wagers cannot be deprived of the regular service benefits, which would have otherwise been made available to them in case their services were regularized or they were given regular appointments. Thus, non-consideration of regularization of services of the daily wager, who have put in continuous service for such a long time and non-payment of even minimum of the pay-scale would constitute arbitrariness on the part of the State as well as the University. 33. Needless to mention here that the daily wagers, who have put in their entire youth in service of the University, cannot be thrown out in lurch simply because of the inaction of the opposite parties in considering their regularization and not giving them regular service benefits, when the verdict of this Court in their favour. 34. Neither Counsel for the University nor counsel for the State have ever stated that services of these daily wagers have been dispensed with at any point of time or any decision was taken or has been taken to terminate their services. This shows that on one hand, the daily wagers aforesaid are being deprived of their absorption in service on regular basis and the payment of the pay-scale and on the other hand, they would be allowed to continue as daily wagers without any objection from the University or by the State. Therefore, since the daily wagers are being continuously allowed to work without break, it is not open for the State to say that they should not be considered for regularization or minimum of the pay-scale should not be paid to them. 35. Therefore, since the daily wagers are being continuously allowed to work without break, it is not open for the State to say that they should not be considered for regularization or minimum of the pay-scale should not be paid to them. 35. Apparently, pursuant to the order dated 23.7.2002, the University has framed a scheme for regularization. Further, as averred above, correct facts have not been brought to the notice of the Secretary by the University authorities, especially about the order dated 23.7.2002 passed in writ petition No. 4257 (SS) of 1994, which was affirmed by a Division Bench of this Court in Special Appeal No. 395 of 2003 vide judgment and order dated 25.11.2003; the University has not filed any special appeal against the judgment and order dated 23.7.2002 and as such, the said judgment dated 23.7.2002 has attained finality, which, of course, is now binding upon the opposite parties. Moreso, recently the State Government has issued a Government Order dated 13.8.2015 whereby it has been provided that persons working on daily wage/work charge/contractual basis in the department of the State Government, its autonomous bodies, public undertakings/local bodies, development authorities and Zila Pancahyat, who were engaged upto 31.3.1996 shall be regularized. By the subsequent Government order dated 24.2.2016, the cut of date was altered to 31.12.2001. 36. Considering the matter in totality and the fact that the judgment an order dated 23.7.2002 is binding upon the opposite parties, this Court is of the opinion that interest of justice would suffice, if the Secretary, Agriculture, Education & Research, Lucknow, is directed to re-examine the issue in the light of the judgment and order dated 23.7.2002 passed in writ petition No. 4257 (SS) of 1994 and the judgment and order dated 25.11.2003 passed in Special Appeal No. 395 of 2003 read with above referred Government Orders. 37. For the reasons aforesaid, the impugned order dated 17.12.2009 passed by the Secretary, Agriculture, Education & Research, Lucknow is hereby quashed. 37. For the reasons aforesaid, the impugned order dated 17.12.2009 passed by the Secretary, Agriculture, Education & Research, Lucknow is hereby quashed. A writ of Mandamus is issued directing the Secretary, Agriculture, Education & Research, Lucknow to re-examine the issue and pass appropriate orders with respect to petitioners in the light of the judgment and order dated 23.7.2002 passed in writ petition No. 4257 (SS) of 1994, which has binding effect, and the judgment and order dated 25.11.2003 passed in Special Appeal No. 395 of 2003 read with Government Orders dated 13.8.2015 and 24.2.2016 issued with regards to regularization. The entire exercise shall be done within a maximum period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 38. The writ petition is allowed in above terms. Costs easy.