Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1633 (HP)

H. P. Midday Meal Workers Union v. State of H. P.

2019-10-31

AJAY MOHAN GOEL

body2019
JUDGMENT : Ajay Mohan Goel, J. 1. By way of this petition, petitioner-union has prayed for the following reliefs:- "(i) That a writ in the nature of mandamus may be issued directing respondents to pay remuneration to Midday Meal Workers in the State of H.P. for entire 12 months instead of 10 months as they are being paid at present. (ii) That a writ in the nature of mandamus may be issued directing respondent State to enhance their share in terms of money for the better execution of the scheme in the State of HP on party of the other States of the country who are put more amount apart from the central assistance for the execution of Midday Meal Scheme. (iii) That a writ in the nature of mandamus may be issued directing respondents not to implement 2010 guidelines upon the Miday Meal workers who are engaged prior to issuance of such guidelines by further directing the respondents to re-engage all such workers whose services were terminated after coming into force the guidelines of 2010. Further directions may very kindly be issued to the respondents to re-engage the services of all such workers who have worked for substantially a long time in the execution of Midday Meal Scheme. (iv) That a writ in the nature of mandamus may be issued directing respondents 1 and 2, in the alternative that in case of enhancement in the enrolment in the schools, the same workers who have already worked as Midday Meal workers only they should be re-engaged and for such engagement, thereafter, no fresh interviews should be conducted fro such workers who have already put substantial time in the schools. (v) To produce the entire record pertaining to the case before this Hon'ble Court for its kind perusal." 2. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner-union is restricting its claim only qua relief No. 1 prayed for in the present writ petition and it may be permitted to withdraw the present writ petition with regard to the other reliefs with liberty to initiate appropriate legal proceedings qua said reliefs. Ordered accordingly. 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties on relief No. 1. 4. Ordered accordingly. 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties on relief No. 1. 4. The limited grievance of the petitioner-union is that its members who are serving as Midday Meal Workers in various schools in the State of H.P. are being paid honorarium only for a period of 10 months in a calendar year and not for the entire calendar year. Its submission is that employees serving in such school are being paid wages for the entire calendar year including the period when the school is closed for vacations etc. However, a discriminatory treatment is being meted out to the members of the petitioner-union by restricting honorarium payable to them only for a period of 10 months. As per the petitioner, said act of the respondents be declared arbitrary and discriminatory and the petition be allowed by issuing direction to the respondents to pay honorarium to the Midday Meal Workers for the entire calendar year. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submit that there is nothing arbitrary with the decision of the respondents to pay honorarium for a period of 10 months only to the Midday Meal Workers, who stand engaged in various schools in the State of Himachal Pradesh because the Midday Meal Workers, in fact perform their duties for a few hours in their schools which is restricted to cooking of the food etc. only and they are being paid honorarium for the period when they actually perform their duties. Learned counsel further submit that as there is no parity between the duty and performance of the Midday Meal Workers viz-a-viz other employees who are serving in the said schools which includes teaching and non-teaching staff, therefore, petitioner-union cannot be permitted to say that the act of respondents of paying honorarium to the Midday Meal Workers only for a period of 10 months is arbitrary or discriminatory. They, thus submit that as there is no merit in the present petition, the same be dismissed. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the pleadings. 7. It is not in dispute that the petitioner-union is the union of Himachal Pradesh Midday Meal Workers. The duty which the members of the petitioner-union perform is of cooking food for the purpose of consumption of the children who are studying in various government schools in the State of Himachal Pradesh. 7. It is not in dispute that the petitioner-union is the union of Himachal Pradesh Midday Meal Workers. The duty which the members of the petitioner-union perform is of cooking food for the purpose of consumption of the children who are studying in various government schools in the State of Himachal Pradesh. This Court cannot loose site of the fact that cooking food for the children who are studying in these schools is an arduous task. Though the nomenclature which has been used viz-a-viz the members of the petitioner-union is Midday Meal Workers, however, for the purposes of preparing lunch for scores or hundreds of children depending upon how many children are studying in each school, these Midday Meal Workers in fact commence their work quite early in the morning so that by lunch hours they are in a position to serve hot, clean and healthy food to the children who are studying in the said schools. 8. The period of 10 months, for which the Midday Meal Workers are being paid honorarium commensurate with the actual imparting of education to the students who are studying in these schools. Meaning thereby that respondents are not paying honorarium to the Midday Meal Workers for the period for which the school in issue stands closed for the purposes of vacation. 9. It is not in dispute that the other staff which is engaged in the school which includes teaching as also non-teaching staff are paid wages for the entire 12 months. Meaning thereby that they are paid wages not only for the period when the school is actually functional but also for the period when the school remains closed for vacations etc. Therefore, the act of respondents of denying honorarium to the Midday Meal Workers for the period when the school is closed, is arbitrary. This, I say so for the reason that the function of all the employees etc. who are engaged in the school is to provide education to the students studying in the school as also to facilitate the same. Whereas it is the teaching staff which actually imparts teaching to the students, other staff which includes non teaching staff as also the Midday Meal Workers etc. facilitate the said process. who are engaged in the school is to provide education to the students studying in the school as also to facilitate the same. Whereas it is the teaching staff which actually imparts teaching to the students, other staff which includes non teaching staff as also the Midday Meal Workers etc. facilitate the said process. If all persons engaged in the process, except the Midday Meal Workers, are being paid wages for the entire calender year, then it is not understood that as to how the same can be denied to the Midday Meal Workers. 10. The contention of the respondents that the Midday Meal Workers are not entitled for honorarium for the period during which they actually do not perform their duties of cooking food etc., is without any merit. If teachers and non teaching staff, who are getting wages in thousands, can be paid by the respondent for the period when the school remains closed, then it is not understood as to how meager honorarium of Rs. 1,000/- per month which a Midday Meal Worker is getting as on date, can be denied by the respondents to such Midday Meal Workers for the period when the schools remain closed. 11. For the purpose of payment of wages or honorarium, the State cannot be permitted to discriminate between similarly situated persons i.e. the persons who are engaged for the purposes of imparting education to the students as also facilitating the said process. 12. This Court is not at all suggesting that the Midday Meal Workers are entitled to get honorarium monetarily at par with other employees engaged in the school, but they at least are entitled for parity viz-a-viz other employees in the sense that as other employees are getting wages etc. even for vacation period then the Midday Meal Workers cannot be deprived of honorarium for the said period. 13. Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Rattan Lal and Others vs. State of Haryana and Others, (1985) 4 SCC 43 , had deprecated the practice of the Government of denying ad-hoc teachers salary and allowances for the period of summer vacations, which was being done by the Government by resorting to fictional brakes given to said teachers. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said judgment ordered that ad-hoc teachers shall be paid salary and allowances for the period of summer vacations also as long as they hold the office. 14. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said judgment ordered that ad-hoc teachers shall be paid salary and allowances for the period of summer vacations also as long as they hold the office. 14. Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in Baldev Singh and Others vs. State of H.P. and Others, 2009 Latest HLJ 293 (HP), by placing reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rattan Lal vs. State of Haryana (supra), has held as under:- "15. The contention of the State that the employees appointed on contract basis are lower status to the ad hoc employees and therefore, cannot be granted salary during the vacations is totally ill founded in fact, a contractual employee has been appointed after following some procedure even though the procedure may not be in accordance with rules. His status is better than that of an ad hoc employee who may be appointed without following any procedure whatsoever. The Apex Court in Rattan Lal vs. State of Haryana, (1985) 4 SCC 43 , has clearly held that the persons appointed on ad hoc basis are entitled to salary for the vacations and the State being a model employer cannot follow invidious method of making public appointments from the first day of the academic term and terminate the appointment on the last date of the academic term. The teachers were appointed on contract basis have worked for a period of more than 2 to 3 years and cannot be deprived of the benefit of salary for the vacation period." 15. Thus, from what has been discussed above, in my considered view the act of respondents of denying the honorarium to the Midday Meal Workers for the period when the school remains closed for vacations or in other words paying honorarium to them only for a period of 10 months in a calender year is arbitrary and discriminatory and thus, violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 16. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed by holding the act of the respondents of restricting honorarium payable to Midday Meal Workers for a period of 10 months in a calender year as arbitrary, discriminatory and thus violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 16. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed by holding the act of the respondents of restricting honorarium payable to Midday Meal Workers for a period of 10 months in a calender year as arbitrary, discriminatory and thus violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Respondents are directed to pay honorarium to the Midday Meal Workers for the entire calender year and not restrict the same for the period of 10 months as has been done till date. This direction shall be prospective in nature, meaning thereby that henceforth members of the petitioner-union/Midday Meal Workers in the State of Himachal Pradesh shall be entitled for wages for the entire calender year. No order as to cost. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, stand disposed of. Interim order, if any, also stands vacated.