AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The petitioner in the instant petition has sought a direction for considering his case for regularization on the post of Class-IV employee and has further
prayed for payment of at least minimum of the regular pay-scale on the post of Class-IV.
Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner has been working since the year 1991 as Class-IV employee and he has been discharging his duties with
the respondents. The petitioner had to file earlier S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.3153/1999 against the termination of his services vide order dated 29th
May, 1999 and this Court allowed the writ petition on 10th July, 2002 and petitioner was ordered to be reinstated back in service. The employer filed
D.B. Special Appeal (W) No.634/2002 before the Division Bench and the Division Bench vide order dated 16.04.2009 affirmed the order of the Single
Bench and it was directed that the petitioner was to be reinstated back in service on the same terms and conditions as was applicable at the time of
his termination of services.
The petitioner has averred in his petition that though he has been reinstated back in service but still he is paid meager amount of Rs.1200/- per month
and he is performing the work of Class-IV employee on regular basis, as such, denial of status and payment of regular pay-scale is arbitrary and
unreasonable.
Mr. Lokesh Sharma, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the claim of the petitioner for regularization has to be decided at
appropriate stage in view of the policy of the State Government, however, the petitioner cannot be denied the minimum pay-scale for Class-IV
employee in view of law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab Vs. Jagjit Singh, reported in (2017) 1 SCC 148.
The learned counsel submits that on the principle of “equal pay for equal workâ€, the persons who are working on continuous basis cannot be
denied at least the minimum wages, which are paid to the employees in the corresponding regular cadre.
Ms.Vandana Sharma, Dy. Govt. Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that the claim of the petitioner cannot be entertained in
respect of regularization of service in view of law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka & Ors. Vs. Uma Devi & Ors.,
reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1. The Counsel submits that petitioner though has been working on Class-IV post but he is paid as per the terms of the
engagement at the rate of Rs.1200/- per month.
I have heard the counsel for both the parties.
The law on the issue of paying minimum pay-scale is settled by the Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab Vs. Jagjit Singh (supra) and
accordingly, the claim of the petitioner for minimum of pay of Class-IV cannot be denied only on the ground that his status is not of a confirmed
employee.
This Court is of the opinion that as per law declared by the Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab Vs. Jagjit Singh (supra), the petitioner is entitled
for minimum of pay of a Class-IV employee and payment at consolidated amount is not justified.
The writ petition accordingly deserves to be allowed and the respondents are directed to pay the minimum pay of pay-scale of Class-IV employee to
the petitioner. The necessary compliance be made within a period of five weeks from today. The claim of the petitioner in respect of regularization of
his service is not entertained at this stage and he is at liberty to raise his claim in respect of regularization as per law in appropriate proceedings.
The writ petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms.