Case at a Glance
A watcher engaged by the Forest Department at Obra, Sonbhadra since 2009 was being paid about Rs 6,162 a month instead of the roughly Rs 18,000 minimum of the Class IV pay scale. A single judge directed, at the interim stage, that he be paid the minimum of the pay scale without allowances or increments. Dismissing the State’s appeals, a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court held that the law on minimum pay for daily wagers is settled since State of U.P. v. Putti Lal, that the Forest Department’s 2024 wage guidelines are illegal, and that interim relief may coincide with final relief when the law is settled. It imposed Rs 1 lakh costs on the State.
Ramesh worked as a Chowkidar/Watcher at the Divisional Forest Office, Obra (Sonbhadra) from about July 2009 and was paid about Rs 6,162 a month. He filed Writ A No. 8863 of 2026 seeking the minimum of the Class IV pay scale, about Rs 18,000. The single judge granted the minimum pay, without allowances or increments, relying on an earlier decision in Keshav Prasad, where a similarly engaged Forest Department worker had been granted the same benefit. A connected appeal concerned another worker, Umesh.
The State appealed. It argued that the Forest Department’s guidelines dated 24 September 2024 governed daily-wager pay; that Ramesh was only a seasonal plantation protection worker without a sanctioned post; that Keshav Prasad, who had served since 1989, was differently placed; and that the single judge had granted final relief at the interim stage without hearing the State. Its own chart showed engagement for three months in 2009, none from 2010 to 2018, and between 2 and 12 months a year from 2019 to February 2026.
The Key Question Before the Court
Can daily wagers doing the same work as regular Class IV employees be denied the minimum of the pay scale on the basis of departmental guidelines, and can such relief be granted at the interim stage?
Thirty Years After Putti Lal, the Law Is Settled
Writing for the Bench, Justice Sudhanshu Chauhan traced the litigation from State of U.P. v. Putti Lal, decided by the High Court in 1998 and affirmed by the Supreme Court (2006) 9 SCC 337, through Hari Shankar v. State of U.P. and Chanchal Kumar Tiwari v. State of U.P., to State of Punjab v. Jagjit Singh, (2017) 1 SCC 148, and Sabha Shankar Dube v. Divisional Forest Officer, (2019) 12 SCC 297. These hold that temporary employees performing the same work as regular staff are entitled to the minimum of the regular pay scale, irrespective of length of service. Following the Division Bench decision in Pavneesh Giri v. State of U.P. (2026), the Court held that the 2024 guidelines, being contrary to Putti Lal, “are clearly illegal and cannot be relied upon by the appellants.”
On the interim-stage objection, the Court held that because “the legal position in respect of the controversy involved in present case stands duly settled”, and refusing relief would cause hardship, interim relief was justified, relying on Ashok Kumar Bajpai v. Ranjana Bajpai, (2003) 10 AHC CK 0071 and Deoraj v. State of Maharashtra, (2004) 04 SC CK 0073, (2004) 4 SCC 697. The State had been heard and had failed to file a counter-affidavit despite repeated opportunities. Its ‘seasonal work’ plea was contradicted by its own chart, and granting the benefit to Keshav Prasad while denying it to Ramesh meant the State was “acting in a pick and choose manner”. The Court described the situation as “a very highly reprehensible situation”.
What the Court Actually Held
- Daily wagers performing the same work as regular Class IV employees are entitled to the minimum of the pay scale, excluding allowances and increments, following Putti Lal, Jagjit Singh and Sabha Shankar Dube.
- The Forest Department’s guidelines dated 24 September 2024, being contrary to Putti Lal, are illegal and cannot be relied upon by the State.
- Where the law is settled, interim relief that coincides with final relief can be granted; the State’s objection that it was not heard was rejected.
- Both special appeals were dismissed with costs of Rs 1 lakh: Rs 50,000 each to Ramesh and Umesh, payable within one month.
Why This Judgment Matters
- Thousands of daily wagers in U.P. government departments, especially Forest, depend on the Putti Lal principle; this ruling reaffirms it against new departmental guidelines.
- It confirms that settled law can justify relief at the interim stage, saving low-paid workers years of litigation.
- Costs payable directly to the workers signal that courts will not tolerate the State selectively extending benefits.
What Should Advocates Take Away From the Judgment?
For Daily Wagers
- If you do the same work as regular Class IV staff, you can claim the minimum of the pay scale (without allowances and increments).
- Keep records of the months you were engaged; the State’s own chart defeated its ‘seasonal work’ plea here.
For Counsel
- Cite Pavneesh Giri and this judgment to counter reliance on the Forest Department’s 24 September 2024 guidelines.
- Where the State has granted the benefit to a similarly placed worker, plead discrimination; the Court called the State’s approach ‘pick and choose’.
Key Takeaways
- Putti Lal still governs: minimum of the Class IV pay scale for daily wagers doing regular work.
- The 2024 Forest Department wage guidelines are illegal.
- Interim relief can match final relief when the law is settled.
- Rs 1 lakh costs on the State, Rs 50,000 to each worker within one month.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the Putti Lal principle?
Following State of U.P. v. Putti Lal, affirmed by the Supreme Court, daily wagers doing the same work as regular Class IV employees in U.P. are entitled to the minimum of the regular pay scale, though not allowances and increments.
Did the court regularise the workers?
No. The issue was pay. The court upheld the direction to pay the minimum of the Class IV pay scale, excluding allowances and increments.
Why were costs imposed on the State?
Because the law was settled, the State had extended the benefit to another worker but denied it to these respondents, failed to file a counter-affidavit and pressed pleas contradicted by its own records. The Court called it highly reprehensible.
Conclusion
For a forest watcher earning about a third of the minimum pay of the post whose work he does, this judgment brings both money and vindication. The Division Bench made clear that departmental guidelines cannot unsettle a principle the courts have enforced for three decades.
Practical takeaway: Daily wagers in U.P. departments paid below the minimum of the Class IV scale can rely on Putti Lal, Pavneesh Giri and this decision, and may seek interim relief where their work matches that of regular staff.
Read the full judgment on CourtKutchehry: View judgment →
For more judgments, legal opinions and case analysis, visit courtkutchehry.com