State of Rajasthan and Another vs Shankar Lal Kumhar

Instant intra court appeal has been filed by the State Govt. against the order of the ld. Single Judge dt. 6.10.2012. However, office has pointed out delay of 79 days in filing special appeal. For meeting out defect separate application has been filed u/s. 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay. Taking note of the explanation furnished, we are satisfied that delay has been satisfactory explained. Accordingly, the application u/s. 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay in filing appeal stands allowed. Delay is accordingly condoned.

Heard on merits.

As reveals from the order of ld. Single Judge the respondent employee who has no right of say in the functioning of the Govt. and working satisfactory for the last 28 years in the Department of Education and being paid a sum of Rs. 100/- per month by the authority who claims itself a model employer violating the statutory notification issued by the govt. under the Minimum Wages Act payable to an employee working on daily wages but we can take judicial notice that even the daily wage payable to the employee cannot be less than minimum wages and when he came to this Court with the grievance after rendered more than 28 years of service at least be paid minimum wages and may be considered for regularization of service obviously in Cadre of Class-IV.

Learned single Judge in its order impugned after hearing the parties arrived at a conclusion that if the employee has been allowed to work for 28 years a presumption can be drawn that there must be a sanctioned post in absence whereof at least for such a longer period of service the incumbent could not be allowed to continue and accordingly observed that he may be paid at least minimum wages in terms of notification issued by the Govt. under the Minimum Wages Act and at the same time the employee may also be considered obviously for regularization in terms of judgment of the Apex Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka and Others Vs. Umadevi and Others,

Have A look of the situation that in such matters where there is no such policy or stakes involved, the State Govt. approached this Court by filing appeal and Mr. Ganesh Meena, AAG appearing for the State submits that even if the employee was allowed to work for 28 years but as there was no sanctioned post the direction for regularization of service cannot be said in conformity with the law of the Apex Court in terms of judgment referred to supra.

The submission is wholly bereft of merit for the reason that the incumbent was allowed to work and serve in the institution of the State Govt. for last 28 years without intervention of the Court and a presumption can be drawn that one cannot be allowed to continue unless there is sanctioned post and this cannot be a reason which the Govt. can take as its defence to deny rightful claim of the incumbent who approached the Court after serving 28 years of satisfactory service and that certainly makes the employee entitled for grant of minimum wages under the notification issued from time to time by the State Govt. under the Minimum Wages Act and he is equally entitled for regularization of service in the light of judgment of Apex Court referred to supra and that what the ld. single Judge observed in its order impugned dt. 6.10.2012.

After hearing the parties, we do not find any error apparent in the order impugned of ld. Single Judge which may require interference of this Court. Consequently, the appeal is wholly without substance and is accordingly dismissed.