TMI Blog2021 (3) TMI 1365X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nefit of parity in their wages - HELD THAT:- In Sabha Shanker Dube vs. Divisional Forest Officer and Others [ 2019 (4) TMI 228 - SUPREME COURT] Hon ble Supreme Court observed that, The issue that was considered by this Court in Jagjit Singh [ 2020 (10) TMI 1323 - UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT] is whether temporary employees (daily wage employees, ad-hoc appointees, employees appointed on casual basis, contractual employees and likewise) are entitled to the minimum of the regular pay scales on account of their performing the same duties which are discharged by those engaged on regular basis against the sanctioned posts. After considering several judgments including the judgments of this Court in Tilak Raj (State of Haryana vs. Tilak Raj - 2003 (7) TMI 741 - SUPREME COURT] ) and Surjit Singh (State of Punjab vs. Surjit Singh [ 2009 (8) TMI 1270 - SUPREME COURT] ), this Court held that temporary employees are entitled to draw wages at the minimum of the pay-scales which are applicable to the regular employees holding the same post. In the light of the above discussions and in view of the law laid down by the Hon ble Supreme Court, we are of the considered view that the learned Single ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nder the administrative control of the Principal Commissioner Income Tax, Haldwani, the respondent no.2. The writ-petitioners are discharging their duties as Peon and Watchman continuously since their initial appointments. 6. The writ-petitioners of the Writ Petition No.1993 of 2019, Mr. Pankaj Singh Brijwal (petitioner no.1) joined in the year, 2007. Mr. Shankar Giri Goswami (petitioner no.2) joined in the year, 2004. Mr. Dharamveer (petitioner no.3) joined in the year, 2006. Mr. Madan Singh (petitioner no.4) joined in the year, 2008. Mr. Mahendra Lal (petitioner no.5) joined in the year, 2011 and Mr. Chanchal (petitioner no.6) joined in the year, 2003. 7. The writ-petitioners of the Writ Petition No.1994 of 2019, Mr. Narendra Singh Bisht (petitioner no.1) joined in the year, 2002, Mr. Lalit Mohan Joshi (petitioner no.2) joined in the year, 2008. Mr. Rajan Singh Bisht (petitioner no.3) joined in the year, 2008. Mr. Monu Kumar (petitioner no.4) joined in the year, 2008. Mr. Dinesh Tewari (petitioner no.5) joined in the year, 2007 and Sapna Roy (petitioner no.6) joined in the year, 2008. 8. The writ-petitioners of the Writ Petition No.1997 of 2019, Mr. Amar Ram (petitioner ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the minimum wages. 12. In order to voice their grievance, the petitioners filed the writ petitions before the learned Single Judge. In the writ petitions they sought the following reliefs:- (i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 09.04.2019, passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Haldwani, District Nainital. (ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the respondents to make payment to the petitioners as per the Instruction/Direction dated 30.07.2019. (iii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the respondents to pay salary to the petitioners to the tune as the similarly situated daily wagers are getting pursuant to the order dated 29.12.2017. 13. Since, in batch of writ-petitions, the common question of facts and law were involved, the learned Single Judge decided the batch of petitions by a common judgment. After hearing both the parties, the learned Single Judge observed that the petitioners were engaged in 2013 and some casual workers were engaged prior to 2013 directly by the Department, therefore, mer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as daily rated wagers from the year, 2002 to 2011 directly by the Department. Mr. H.M. Bhatia, the learned counsel for the appellants could not show the reasons behind the decision of changing the service conditions of the petitioners and without any reason/basis, the said decision cannot be legally sustainable in law. 19. State, a model employer, is required to act fairly. Article 16 (1), read with Article 14 and Article 39 (d) of the Constitution of India guarantees equal pay for equal work, so that the Court would strike down unequal scales of pay for identical work under the same employer, which is based on no classification or irrational classification. Equal pay for equal work applies when two persons are similarly situated but given different and unequal treatment. Article 14 of the Constitution of India permits reasonable classification based on qualities or characteristics. The said classification must have a reasonable relation to the object sought to be achieved. The principle of equal pay for equal work applies two cases of unequal scales of pay, based on no classification or irrational classification. The State is under a constitutional obligation to ensure that equ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ho performs the same duties and responsibilities. Certainly not, in a welfare State. Such an action besides being demeaning, strikes at the very foundation of human dignity. Anyone, who is compelled to work at a lesser wage does not do so voluntarily. He does so to provide food and shelter to his family, at the cost of his self-respect and dignity, at the cost of his self-worth, and at the cost of his integrity. For he knows that his dependants would suffer immensely, if he does not accept the lesser wage. Any act of paying less wages as compared to others similarly situate constitutes an act of exploitative enslavement, emerging out of a domineering position. Undoubtedly, the actions is oppressive, suppressive and coercive, as it compels involuntary subjugation. The Hon ble Supreme Court has held in the paragraph 60 of the said judgment:- 60. Having traversed the legal parameters with reference to the application of the principle of equal pay for equal work , in relation to temporary employees (daily-wage employees, ad hoc appointees, employees appointed on casual basis, contractual employees and the like), the sole factor that requires our determination is, whether t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
