Research › Search › Judgment

Chhattisgarh High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 115 (CHH)

Mayaram Yadav v. State of Chhattisgarh

2022-03-02

PARTH PRATEEM SAHU

body2022
JUDGMENT : Parth Prateem Sahu, J. 1. Petitioner has filed this writ petition with following reliefs:- “10.1 To kindly direct the Respondent No. 4, Block Education Development Officer, Pondi Uparoda, District Korba to issue an order for payment of wages to the petitioner from 23.10.2006 till 31.10.2009. 10.2 To kindly make any other order that may be deemed fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case including awarding of the costs to the petitioner.” 2. Mr. Harsh Mandar Rastogi, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that petitioner was employed by respondent No. 4 as Watchman for a period of 89 days and posted him at Middle School Laad, Korba, District Korba (C.G.) vide order dated 17.10.2006. From the date of his appointment, petitioner continuously worked till 31.10.2009. Though petitioner was initially engaged and posted as Watchman for a period of 89 days, but he continued till 31.10.2009. He signed the attendance register maintained by Middle School Laad, Korba, District Korba (C.G.). No order of removing petitioner or stopping him from the work was issued by respondent No. 3 or any of school authority neither in writing nor orally. On 09.10.2009, respondent No. 3 issued a letter calling explanation from the petitioner within a period of 1 week that he is working without any order after completion of 89 days and even the appointment for a period of 89 days to be illegal. Respondents who took service of petitioner from 23.10.2006 till 31.10.2009 have not paid his wages till date, hence, a direction be issued to the respondents to make payment of wages, for which, petitioner worked and also interest upon it at the rate of 12%. 3. Per contra, Mr. Ali Asgar, learned Deputy Advocate General along with Mr. Shakti Singh Thakur, learned Panel Lawyer for the State/respondents would submit that from Annexure P/1, it is also apparent that petitioner was engaged as Watchman only for 89 days, however, he continued to work as Watchman till 31.10.2009, but due to not receiving allotment of funds under “Labour head” for payment to petitioner it could not be paid. He submits that respondent No. 4 calculated wages to be paid as Rs.99,105/- and forwarded the same to respondent No. 3 on 02.04.2013 itself, till date, amount under the “head of Labour” has not been allotted to respondent No. 4, hence, payment could not be effected. He submits that respondent No. 4 calculated wages to be paid as Rs.99,105/- and forwarded the same to respondent No. 3 on 02.04.2013 itself, till date, amount under the “head of Labour” has not been allotted to respondent No. 4, hence, payment could not be effected. It is contended that as soon as amount will be allotted form the Office of Commissioner, payment will be made immediately without any delay. Mr. Ali, Deputy Advocate General on instructions, submits that till date, funds have not been allotted. He contended that respondent No. 4 is making effort to get allotment of funds at the earliest. He pointed out that as non-payment of wages to petitioner is only on account of non-allotment of fund, interest may not be imposed. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record of the writ petition. 5. Perusal of Annexure P/1 would show that undisputedly order of engagement of petitioner as Watchman at Middle School Laad, Korba, District Korba (C.G.) by respondent No. 4 was issued on 17.10.2006. Petitioner has placed on record attendance register maintained by Middle School Laad, Korba District Korba (C.G.) showing his attendance. Letter dated 09.10.2009 issued by respondent No. 3 would make it clear that in the last line, respondent No. 3 mentioned that “submit an explanation within seven days appearing in the Office or else action of termination of service will be initiated”. The documents placed on record clearly mentions that petitioner was deputed at Middle School Laad, Korba, District Korba (C.G.) to work as Watchman and he continuously worked till October 2009. Even respondents/State has not disputed his engagement by respondent No. 4 to work as Watchman. In fact, respondent No. 4 made request to Assistant Commissioner, Tribal Welfare Department, Korba District Korba (C.G.) to allot Rs.99,105/- towards wages of petitioner. Respondents have also placed on record calculation chart of wages from 23.10.2006 to October 2009. 6. In reply, respondents/State has admitted entitlement of petitioner of Rs.99,105/- towards his wages for services he rendered to Middle School Laad, Korba District Korba (C.G.). Wage due to petitioner is admitted by respondents in their reply, which is filed much earlier on 27.04.2013, even after lapse of about 9 years, statement of counsel for State is same as it was on 27.04.2013 that fund for payment of wages is demanded and is still to be received. Wage due to petitioner is admitted by respondents in their reply, which is filed much earlier on 27.04.2013, even after lapse of about 9 years, statement of counsel for State is same as it was on 27.04.2013 that fund for payment of wages is demanded and is still to be received. Action on the part of respondents in not making wages even after taking service of petitioner continuously for about 3 years is arbitrary in nature. Respondents being the State Government is having duty to protect interest of all citizens and is much more where, the State took service of any of person or employee to make their payment/wages. Respondents have not paid the wages to petitioner of the work which he did 12 years ago, even when his engagement and work done by him is not disputed. In the aforementioned facts of the case, where there is no dispute either in the period of work done by petitioner as also liability to pay wages as calculated by respondents themselves, writ petition deserves to be allowed and it is allowed. 7. Respondents are directed to make payment of wages of Rs. 99,105/- due to petitioner from 23.10.2006 to 31.10.2009 along with interest at the rate of 7% from the date it became due till the date of its realization. It is further directed that respondents shall make payment to petitioner as early as possible at any rate within a period of 4 months' from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.