State Of UP & Ors. vs Ramesh

“I. Issue a writ order of direction in the nature of mandamus commanding to the respondents to pay minimum of the pay scale of Rs. 18,000/- per month of Class-IV to the petitioner on which he is working in view of Hon’ble Supreme Court’s Judgment dated 21.02.2002 state of U.P. and others Vs. Putti Lal reported in (2002) Vol. (2) U.P.L.O.B.E.C. Page 1595 and Judgment dated 14.11.2018 passed by Hon’ble Supreme court in Civil Appeal no. 10956 of 2018 Sabha Shankar Dubey Vs. Divisional Forest Officer and others Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of State of Punjab and others Vs. Jagjit Singh and others reported in (2017) 1 SCC Page 148 and recent judgment.”

“10.

The Government works through its servants whose conditions of service including the pay scale are regulated by it by statutory Rules and/or by administrative orders subject to Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The strength of the service in the Government Department is fixed and is also increased according to the requirement of work. In the present case the strength of Class III and IV in the Forest Department has been fixed long ago and does not appear to have been increased and the Department has undertaken various Schemes. It appears that all the Scheme are not of permanent nature, but the Daily Wagers have not been appointed Schemewise. They have been employed by the Forest Department and if a Scheme has been completed or abandoned they have been transferred to other Schemes. It is obligatory for the Government to pay salary to its employees according to prescribed pay scales. It is not open to it to pay them less than what has been fixed. The Daily wagers are appointed to meet the unexpected or temporary increased work load. No such appointment can be made when the need is permanent or semi-permanent to last for long period except for a short period by way of interim arrangement. The Government cannot take advantage of prevailing unemployment in the society by employing Daily Wagers even when the need is of permanent or semi-permanent nature. To meet such needs regular appointments are required to be made. The fact that Daily Wagers are working for considerable long time, in some cases even for more than 20 years, demonstrates that the requirement of the additional hands in the Department was of permanent or semi-permanent nature and the Government in such situation should have taken steps for making regular appointments. But that has not been done. Instead. Daily Wagers have been appointed who are working on meagre wages. May be that through this method the Government can employ persons on meagre wagers, but such a course is not permissible in view of the underlying principle contained in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

11.

The observations made above are based on the data relating to Bundelkhand Division, supplied by the petitioners. There is no material on the record as regards other circles Divisions in the State. As we are relegating the matter to the Government it is to consider the whole issue after collecting necessary materials from all the Divisions/Circles of the State.

14.

As regards the second submission advanced by the learned Counsel for the petitioners it may be noted that the writ petition No.15627 of 1988 was filed by an Association known as Kumaun Van Shramik Sangh Centre and a daily wager seeking writ of mandamus directing the respondents therein namely, State of U.P., Secretary, Forest, Lucknow and Additional Chief Conservator of Forest, Kumaun at Nainital to frame the Scheme and to pay the petitioner No. 2 and other similarly placed employees the wages at the rates equivalent to minimum pay in the pay scales of the regularly employed workers in the corresponding cadres. The learned Judge while allowing the writ petition did not confine his judgment to the petitioners members only but issued general directions to the respondents therein for payment of wages/salary and for framing the Scheme for regularisation. Relevant extract of the judgment of learned Judge, is reproduced below:

“....but the petitioners have certainly made out a case for issuance of a direction to the respondents to pay to the petitioner No. 2 and other similarly circumstance. Daily Rated Labourers/Workers under the control of the respondents, the wages at the rates equivalent to the minimum pay in the pay scales of the regularly employed workers in the corresponding cadres but without any increments with effect from 19.8.1988 on which date the writ petition was filed in this Court together with corresponding dearness allowances and additional dearness allowances, if any payable therein, with a further direction to the respondents to frame a scheme within a period of six months from the date of presentation of a certified copy of this order before the Secretary, Forest Department, Government of Uttar Pradesh and the Chief Conservator of Forest Department, U.P, Lucknow."

The submission of the learned Additional Advocate General to the effect that the directions given by this Court in the case of Kumaun Van Shramik Sangh Centre v. State of U.P. (supra), should be confined to the members of that Association, cannot be accepted for another reason, viz. it is not open to the Government to pay different pay scale and give different treatment to the similarly placed employees working in the State unless, there is plausible justification for such a treatment. In the instant case no such justification has been demonstrated by the respondents. Therefore, benefits of the said judgment of the learned Judge have to go to all the Daily Wagers/Muster Roll employees. It is admitted by the respondents that the pay at the rate as directed by the learned Judge in the said case, is being paid to those Daily Wagers who are members of Kumaun Van Shramik Sangh Centre and such payment is not being made to any other dally wager working anywhere in the State including in Kumaun hills. It is also admitted that the Scheme as directed by the learned Judge has not been framed by the Government so far. The Judgment of the learned Judge is binding on the Government and its functionaries. They are, therefore, bound to pay in terms of the said judgment to every daily rated labourers/muster roll employees and the Government is also bound to frame Scheme for regularisation of their service.” (emphasis added)

“In several cases this Court applying the principle of equal pay for equal work has held that a daily wager, if he is discharging the similar duties as those in the regular employment of the Government, should at least be entitled to receive the minimum of the pay scale though he might not be entitled to any increment or any other allowance that is permissible to his counter part in the Government. In our opinion that would be the correct position and we, therefore, direct that these daily-wagers would be entitled to draw at the minimum of the pay scale being received by their counter part in the Government and would not be entitled to any other allowances or increment so long as they continue as daily-wager. The question of their regular absorption will obviously be dealt with in accordance with the statutory rule already referred to.” (emphasis added)

“16.

There were two aspects of the directions issued by this Court. One was with regard to the claim for regularisation and the other with regard to grant of minimum of pay scale. In the present case there is no issue with regard to claim for regularisation as the applicants have already given up their claim for regularisation. The present matter is only with regard to award of minimum of pay scale. This Court or the Apex Court in its judgments have nowhere drawn any distinction regarding grant of minimum of pay scale although without any benefit of allowances or increment. It was a general direction without any classification that all the daily rated workers were to be given minimum of pay scale without any allowances or increment. The opposite parties having not granted the minimum of pay scale to the applicants by drawing a distinction of it being admissible only to those few who had been recommended for regularisation, amounts to misreading of the judgments of this Court and the Apex Court. They are trying to impose a condition to circumvent the import of the judgment, which is not permissible in law and would amount to clear disobedience.

17.

A query was put to Sri K.R. Singh as to whether there was any such condition laid down in any Rules in that regard whereby such a distinction had been provided but the reply is that the Rules nowhere provide for the award of minimum of pay scale. In fact according to him the Rules are silent about the payment of minimum of pay scale to the daily rated workers. Thus the governing factors for grant of minimum of pay scale are the directions contained in the judgments of this Court and the Apex Court. In view of the above discussions, such argument is accordingly rejected.” (emphasis added)

“1.

These special appeals against a common order dated 01.07.2010 reported in (2010) 3 UPLBEC 2097, arise out of proceedings in contempt for non-payment of wages to daily wage workers engaged in the Forest Department of the State of Uttar Pradesh. The learned Judge, after noting the order passed by this Court in State of U.P. and others v. Putti Lal, (1998) 1 UPLBEC 313, judgment of the Supreme Court dated 21.02.2002 in State of U.P. and others v. Putti Lal, (2002) 2 UPLBEC 1595, and after being prima facie satisfied that there has been willful and deliberate disobedience/non-compliance on the part of the opposite parties in the proceedings before him, of the directions of this Court, as contained in the judgments in Putti Lal (supra), as modified by the Supreme Court, issued various directions and, at the same time, observed that it would be open to the Principal Secretary, Department of Forest, Government of U.P. and the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, State of U.P. to consider the matter in the light of the observations made in the said order and take necessary steps in that regard.

"8.

From the above judgments and interim direction, it would be clear that the law as declared in terms of Article 141 of the Constitution of India, is that the daily wagers, as long as they continue on daily wage basis, are entitled to draw at the minimum of the pay scale being received by their counterparts in Government and would not be entitled to any other allowances or increment so long as they continue as daily wagers. In spite of these judgments, the State Government has not been paying to employees, engaged as daily labour, the wages in terms of the judgment of this Court, as upheld by the Supreme Court."

"17.

On consideration of the judgments in Putti Lal (supra), both of this Court and of the Supreme Court, there is nothing in the said judgments to differentiate employees into those who are eligible for regularization and those who are not eligible for regularization. The principle on which they are paid being, that all such daily wagers are doing similar work and are similarly placed persons and as such between them, there can be no mini-classification. The fact that under the rules framed, one may be eligible for regularization considering qualification, like educational qualification, experience, age etc. and the others may not be eligible, cannot result in holding that it is open to the State to pay different wages to similarly situated employees and to treat such persons differently, though they are similarly placed and do the same work. This will be abhorrent to our constitutional values of equality as enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The State had not raised such a plea before the Supreme Court against the judgment in appeal in Putti Lal (supra). The observations by the Supreme Court are also not restricted to those who are eligible for regularization. The Supreme Court itself has, while applying the principle of "equal pay for equal work", held that a daily wager, if he is discharging similar duties with those in the regular employment of the Government should at least be entitled to receive the minimum at the pay scale, though they may not be entitled to any other increment or allowances as permissible to their counterparts in the Government employment. That, they are doing similar work as regular employees is not disputed, as the State Government itself is paying the minimum in the pay scale to those who are eligible for regularization. All daily rated employees were being paid the same minimum wage before the direction to pay them at the minimum of the pay scale. The State has nowhere disputed that they are doing similar work. This classification between those who are eligible for regularization and those who are not eligible for regularization, was sought to be made for the first time before this Court in the contempt proceedings. Such a plea was not raised earlier, and such a plea would be barred by the principles of constructive res judicata. Even otherwise, such a plea would not be permissible considering the principal of "equal pay for equal work". The contention advanced by the State, which would result in departing from the principle of "equal pay for equal work", has to be rejected." (emphasis added)

“5.

We direct the Principal Secretary to the Department of Forests, U.P. and the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, U.P. to file separate affidavits before the High Court on the implementation of the orders referred to above. In case, the workmen have not been paid the amounts as per the orders, they shall see that wages are paid in terms of the orders within a period of one month from today and the affidavit in that regard shall be filed before the High Court within two weeks thereafter.

6.

In case the orders are not implemented, the Principal Secretary to the Department of Forests and the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests shall not be eligible to draw their salaries from the month of April 2016, without permission from the High Court.” (emphasis added)

“दिनांक 01.01.2016 से प्रदेश सरकार द्वारा सप्तम वेतन आयोग की संस्तुतियां स्वीकार की गयी तथा सप्तम वेतन आयोग के आधार पर समस्त कार्मिकों के वेतन निर्धारित किये गये। इसी क्रम में प्रधान मुख्य वन संरक्षक और विभागाध्यक्ष, उ०प्र० के पत्र संख्या-1588/2-10, दिनांक 15.06.2017 द्वारा न्यूनतम वेतन पा रहे दैनिक श्रमिकों को (समूह ग हेतु रु० 19900/- तथा समूह घ हेतु रु० 18000/-) के वेतन की अनुमन्यता के सम्बन्ध में दिशा निर्देश मांगे गये। शासन के पत्र संख्या-1773/चौदह-3-17-300 (12)/2018, दिनांक 08.03.2018 द्वारा यह निर्देश दिया गया कि “प्रश्नगत प्रकरण में पुरीक्षित वेतन मैट्रिक्स के संबंध में वित्त (वेतन आयोग) अनुभाग-2 उ०प्र० शासन के शासनादेश संख्या-67/2016/वे०आ०-2-04 (म)/2016 दिनांक 22.12.2016 राज्य सरकार के पूर्ण कालिक सेवाओं के कार्मिकों पर ही लागू है। उक्त शासनादेश दैनिक वेतनभोगी कार्मिकों पर लागू नहीं है।” (संलग्नक-4)

उक्त पत्र के क्रम में ऐसे दैनिक वेतन भोगी कार्मिक जिन्हें न्यूनतम वेतन अनुमन्य किया गया था को रु० 7000/- प्रतिमाह का वेतन दिया जाने लगा। यहाँ यह भी संज्ञान में लाना है कि इन कर्मियों को कतिपय वन प्रभागों में रु० 18000/- प्रतिमाह का वेतन सप्तम वेतन आयोग के न्यूनतम स्तर के अनुसार दिया जा रहा था।

प्रभावित दैनिक श्रमिकों द्वारा न्यायालय में वाद दाखिल करने के पश्चात न्यायालय द्वारा दिये गये निर्णय के क्रम में शासनादेश दिनांक 20.03.2023 (संलग्नक-5) से निम्न आदेश निर्गत किया गया है, जिसका प्रभावी अंश निम्न है-

“अवगत कराना है कि शासन के पत्रांक रिट-105/81-3-2023-300(12)/2009 दिनांक 22.02.2023 द्वारा रिट याचिका संख्या-11964/2018 मोहन स्वरूप व अन्य बनाम उ०प्र० राज्यादि अन्य से सम्बन्धित याचियों को दिनांक 01.04.2018 से रु० 18000/- सशर्त न्यूनतम वेतन प्रतिमाह भुगतान किये जाने के निर्देश प्रसारित किये गये।

2.

उक्त पत्र दिनांक 22.02.2023 में उल्लिखित रिट याचिका संख्या-11964/2018 मोहन स्वरूप व अन्य बनाम उ०प्र० राज्यादि से सम्बन्धित याचियों के स्थान पर रिट याचिका संख्या-11964/2018 मोहन स्वरूप व अन्य बनाम उ०प्र० राज्यादि के साथ सम्बद्ध सभी याचिकाओं के याचियों को पढ़ा जाये इस शासनादेश दिनांक 22.02.2023 को केवल इस सीमा तक संशोधित माना जायेगा।”

2.

उक्त शासनादेश के अनुपालन में रिट याचिका संख्या-11964/2018 मोहन स्वरूप व अन्य बनाम उ०प्र० राज्यादि से सम्बन्धित याचियों को दिनांक 01.04.2018 से रु० 18000/- सशर्त न्यूनतम वेतन प्रतिमाह भुगतान किये जाने के निर्देश इस कार्यालय के पत्रांक को० के० 1812/6 जी०जी०एल दिनांक 05.04.2023 (संलग्नक 6) से सम्बन्धित प्रभागीय वनाधिकारी / प्रभागीय निदेशकों को जिनके यहां मोहन स्वरूप से सम्बन्धित रिट याचिकायें सम्बद्ध थीं (लगभग 21 वन प्रभाग आच्छादित), निर्गत किया गया।

उक्त शासकीय पत्र दिनांक 08.03.2018 (संलग्नक-22) का परिचालन समस्त फील्ड अधिकारियों को मुख्य वन संरक्षक, मानव संसाधन विकास, उ०प्र०, लखनऊ का पत्रांक 1261/2-10 दिनांक 20.03.2018 (संलग्नक-23) से किया गया जिसके फलस्वरूप फील्ड स्तर के अधिकारियों ने जो दैनिक श्रमिकों का रु० 18000/- दिया जा रहा था, उक्त शासनादेश (संलग्नक-24) के अनुपालन में सम्बन्धित प्रभागीय अधिकारियों द्वारा निरस्तीकरण आदेश जारी करते हुए रु० 7000/- प्रतिमाह भुगतान किये जाने आदेश जारी किये गये, जो वर्तमान में दैनिक श्रमिकों के लिए प्रचलित है।

चूंकि उक्त बिन्दु-1 व 2 में मोहन स्वरूप से सम्बद्ध रिट याचिकाओं शासनादेश दिनांक 20.03.2023 से दिनांक 01.04.2018 से रु० 18000/- सशर्त न्यूनतम वेतन प्रतिमाह भुगतान किये जाने के निर्देश प्रसारित किये गये।

9.

इस सम्बन्ध यहां यह भी कहना उचित होगा कि जिन प्रभाग स्तर पर जिन न्यूनतम वेतन कार्मिक को रु० 18000/- से घटाकर रु० 7000/- किया गया है वह भी आगामी दिनों में वाद दायर किये जाने की प्रबल सम्भावना है, ऐसे में राज्य मुकदमा नीति एवं राज्य एक welfare स्तर मुकदमों की बाढ़ कम करने के लिए शासन स्तर से नीति निर्धारण करते हुये सामान्य दिशा निर्देश जारी किया जाना आवश्यक होगा।

अतः शासन से अनुरोध है कि उक्त बिन्दु-1 से 9 तक का अवलोकन करते हुए, बिन्दु-9 पर पूर्व में जैसे शासन द्वारा संदर्भित पत्र दिनांक 11.03.2010 तथा दिनांक 25.05.2010 (संलग्नक-25) के समान ही नीतिगत निर्णय लेते हुये सामान्य दिशा-निर्देश जारी करने का कष्ट करें।”

“3.

Sri Shrawan Kumar Dubey, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel has placed a communication letter dated 23.05.2023 written by Principal Chief Conservator, Lucknow to the Additional Chief Secretary, State of U.P. whereby she has requested the Additional Chief Secretary to take decision with regard to payment of minimum wages @ Rs.18,000/- per month under the 7th Pay Commission to daily wage employees in the light of judgement of this Court in the case of Ram Surat Yadav Vs. State of U.P. passed in Special Appeal No.974 of 2004, Mohan Swaroop and Another Vs. State of U.P. and Others passed in Writ-A No.11964 of 2018 and judgement of Apex Court in the case of Sabha Shankar Dube Vs. Divisional Forest Officer & Others passed in Civil Appeal Nos.10957-10963 of 2018.

4.

This Court may record that once respondent accepts that petitioners are entitled to minimum wages @ Rs.18,000/- as per 7th Pay Commission, there is no reason to deny the said benefit to other similarly situated employees of the Forest Department, who are working as daily wager. This Court expects that that State of U.P. shall come out with a positive policy in respect to minimum wages to daily wage employees @ Rs.18,000/- per month as per 7th Pay Commission.

5.

This Court may also note that such policy will not only give the daily wagers their entitlement to the minimum of pay scale, but also would relieve this Court from unnecessarily litigation which would help the Court in disseminating justice to those who are already in queue. Such a policy would also help in reducing expenditure incurred by the State in unnecessary litigation. This Court expects that such decision shall be taken and necessary orders shall be issued by the State Government expeditiously, preferably within a period of two months from the date of production of certified copy of this order.” (emphasis added)

“4.

Sri Ashok Mehta, learned Additional Advocate General has explained the position in the matter of the State and submits that now the State is ready to make payment of Rs. 18,000/- with all arrears w.e.f. 1.4.2018 and also those who have though been regularized but their arrears regarding Rs.18,000/-have remained unpaid. Sri Mehta further explains the position of the State in respect of daily-wagers who have been working for the last two decades or more their claim for payment of minimum of pay scale as per their eligibility would be matter of policy, which would be framed soon by the State.

6.

Thus, it is clear that State is ready to make sure that all those who have been drawing Rs.7000/- would be entitled not only current and future payment @ Rs. 18,000/- per month but also as per 7th pay recommendation by way of minimum of pay-scale but would also be entitled to arrears w.e.f 1.4.2018 of the said pay. Those who have been regularized, as per statement of Mr. Mehta, and have not received arrears of pay as per recommendation of 7th pay commission minimum pay of Rs.18,000/-, shall also be paid within the time prescribed by the State Government in the letter dated 7th December, 2023 (supra).

7.

Regarding policy making and presenting the same before the Court in respect of those who are working on daily-wage basis since last 20 years, Mr. Mehta states that positively as far as possible on the next date fixed some policy would be framed and be placed. He submits that State Government is very sincerely and honestly taking up issue and would come out in black and white with definite policy in respect of such daily-wagers positively by the next date fixed.

9.

Shri Mehta in reply submits that whatever may have happened in the past, this time government is all set to make payments within a week and frame policy for others and place the same by next date fixed.

10.

Having gone through the compliance affidavit and the order dated 07.12.2023 passed on behalf of the State Government and noticed what has been stated by Shri Mehta ,I find there to be no reason to doubt bonafides of the Government qua action taken in the matter. Officers in the cadre of Indian Administrative Services and that too of a senior rank like Additional Chief Secretary and Under Secretary to the Government are expected to go by their words and not to trace back their steps from their stand taken before the Court to invite contempt proceedings.

12.

All the previous stand, if taken by the State Government and is contrary to what has been stated in compliance affidavit filed today and the directions contained in orders dated 06.12.2023, and 07.12.2023, shall be deemed to have been superceded.

13.

In so far as policy framing is concerned, there is required both fairness and transparency. So, for framing of policy, the appropriate Committee should be Committee of State Government under the chairmanship of the Additional Chief Secretary or any officer nominated by him not below the rank of the Secretary to the State Government. The Committee should consist of 5 or 6 members from Government and Forest department, as it may nominate but it will necessarily include Principal Chief Conservator of Forest. The Committee should examine all aspects for payment of minimum of the pay scale to all working daily-wagers working in the forest department and shall frame policy within a period of thirty days from today. The Committee shall also prepare the chart in respect of such daily wagers/workers working in different divisions of forest department of the State of U.P. as per seniority of their engagement in employment and shall place the same before the Court.” (emphasis added)

“54.2.

The High Court extended different wages to temporary employees by categorizing them on the basis of their length of service. This is clearly in the teeth of the judgment in Daily Rated Casual Labour Vs. Union of India (1988) 1 SCC 122. In the above judgment, this Court held that classification of employees based on their length of service (those who had not completed 720 days of service, in a period of 3 years; those who had completed more than 720 days of service-with effect from 1.4.1977; and those who had completed 1200 days of service), for payment of different levels of wages (even though they were admittedly discharging the same duties), was not tenable. The classification was held to be violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

57.

There is no room for any doubt that the principle of ‘equal pay for equal work’ has emerged from an interpretation of different provisions of the Constitution. The principle has been expounded through a large number of judgments rendered by this Court, and constitutes law declared by this Court. The same is binding on all the courts in India, under Article 141 of the Constitution of India. The parameters of the principle have been summarized by us in paragraph 42 hereinabove. The principle of ‘equal pay for equal work’ has also been extended to temporary employees (differently described as work-charge, daily wage, casual, ad-hoc, contractual, and the like). The legal position, relating to temporary employees has been summarized by us, in paragraph 44 hereinabove. The above legal position which has been repeatedly declared, is being reiterated by us yet again.

58.

In our considered view, it is fallacious to determine artificial parameters to deny fruits of labour. An employee engaged for the same work cannot be paid less than another who 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. Any one, 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 dependents 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 action is oppressive, suppressive and coercive, as it compels involuntary subjugation.”

(emphasis added)

“10.

The issue that was considered by this Court in Jagjit Singh (supra) 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 (supra) and Surjit Singh (supra), 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.

11.

In view of the judgment in Jagjit Singh (supra), we are unable to uphold the view of the High Court that the Appellants-herein are not entitled to be paid the minimum of the pay sales. We are not called upon to adjudicate on the rights of the Appellants relating to the regularization of their services. We are concerned only with the principle laid down by this Court initially in Putti Lal (supra) relating to persons who are similarly situated to the Appellants and later affirmed in Jagjit Singh (supra) that temporary employees are entitled to minimum of the pay scales as long as they continue in service.”

(emphasis added)

“9.

Insofar as the relief for the payment of minimum of pay in the pay scale with which the original petitioner/appellant claims parity is concerned, the matter may require further consideration by the learned Single Judge, keeping in mind the observations and directions of the Supreme Court including those contained in paragraph No. 14 of the said report. That specific consideration was not dealt with by the learned Single Judge.

10.

Further, the Office Memorandum dated 24.09.2024 cannot be described as a 'Government Order', it is mere an administrative decision. In light of the law laid down by the Supreme Court, if it is found to be contrary to the directions issued in Putti Lal (supra), it may not require a specific challenge for the purposes of constitutional writ of mandamus to compel the authorities to make payments in terms of the decision of the Supreme Court.”

“17.

In view of the above, it is evident that the Court should not grant interim relief which amounts to final relief and in exceptional circumstances where the Court is satisfied that ultimately the petitioner is bound to succeed and fact-situation warrants granting such a relief, the Court may grant the relief but it must record reasons for passing such an order and make it clear as what are the special circumstances for which such a relief is being granted to a party.”

“12.

Situations emerge where the granting of an interim relief would tantamount to granting the final relief itself. And then there may be converse cases where withholding of an interim relief would tantamount to dismissal of main petition itself; for, by the time the main matter comes up for hearing there would be nothing left to be allowed as relief to the petitioner though all the findings may be in his favour. In such cases the availability of a very strong prima facie case ___ of a standard much higher than just prima facie case, the considerations of balance of convenience and irreparable injury forcefully tilting the balance of case totally in favour of the applicant may persuade the Court to grant an interim relief though it amounts to granting the final relief itself. Of course, such would be rare and exceptional cases. The Court would grant such an interim relief only if satisfied that withholding of it would prick the conscience of the Court and do violence to the sense of justice, resulting in injustice being perpetuated throughout the hearing, and at the end the Court would not be able to vindicate the cause of justice. Obviously such would be rare cases accompanied by compelling circumstances, where the injury complained of is immediate and pressing and would cause extreme hardship. The conduct of the parties shall also have to be seen and the Court may put the parties on such terms as may be prudent.”

8.

It is necessary for us to refer to the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court of Allahabad in State of U.P. v. Chhiddi as all the impugned Special Appeals were dismissed by following the said judgment. The directions issued by the learned Single Judge to re-consider the Writ Petitioners for regularization of their services by ignoring the minimum educational qualifications and the physical endurance requirements as well as continuance of the Writ Petitioners on a daily wage basis with the minimum of the pay scales were set aside by the Division Bench.

9.

The daily wagers relied upon a judgment of this Court in Putti Lal and submitted that the same relief may be extended to them. It is relevant to note that the judgment in Putti Lal (supra) relates to a dispute similar to that involved in this case. Daily rated wage earners in the Forest Department in the State of Uttar Pradesh approached the High Court for regularization of their services. The Division Bench of the High Court of Allahabad directed the State Government to constitute the Committee as directed in order to frame the scheme for regularization. The judgment of the High Court that the daily rated wage workers shall be paid at the minimum of the pay scales was affirmed by this Court on the principle of equal pay for equal work. The Division Bench of the High Court while deciding State of U.P. v. Chhiddi referred to the judgment in Putti Lal but placed reliance on a later judgment of this Court Tilak Raj (supra). The Division Bench of the High Court also cited the case of Surjit Singh to hold that the daily wagers cannot seek the benefit of the judgment of Putti Lal case in view of the subsequent decisions of this Court wherein, according to the High Court, it was held that daily wage employees were not entitled to the minimum of the pay scales.”

“1.

Sri Daya Shanker Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the order with regard to the minimum pay scale, without any allowances, has already been granted to the petitioner, herein, therefore, he seeks to withdraw the instant writ petition.

2.

Accordingly, the instant writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn.

3.

The benefits already granted/accrued to the petitioner shall not be withdrawn till the age of superannuation of the petitioner herein, subject to his satisfactory performance. If the petitioner is found not working to the satisfaction of the department concerned or is guilty of misconduct etc., his services can be terminated by the respondents after following due process of law and giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner in this regard.

4.

Let this case be delinked from bunch matters and shall not be shown in the cause list. “

“Lastly we have to deal with the contention that the Scheme is a temporary Scheme and the posts are sanctioned on an year to year basis having regard to the temporary nature of the Scheme. We are unable to comprehend how this factor can be invoked for violating. 'Equal pay for equal work' doctrine. Whether appointments are for temporary periods and the Schemes are temporary in nature is irrelevant once it is shown that the nature of the duties and functions discharged and the work done is similar and the doctrine of 'Equal pay for equal work' is attracted. As regards the effect of the breaks given at the end of every six months, we will deal with this aspect shortly hereafter. That however is no ground for refusing to respect the 'Equal pay for equal work' doctrine. Be it realized that we are concerned with the 'Equal work Equal pay' doctrine only within the parameters of the four grounds and the fact situation discussed hereinabove. We are not called upon, and we have no need or occasion to consider the applicability or otherwise of the said doctrine outside these parameters.”

“13.

That the petitioner-respondent herein is neither a regular nor a continuously engaged worker. The official records disclose that he was engaged only as a casual Plantation Protection Worker, the details whereof are as follows :

Serial No. Year Duration of work 1. 2009 Three months 2. 2010 Zero day 3. 2011 Zero day 4. 2012 Zero day 5. 2013 Zero day 6. 2014 Zero day 7. 2015 Zero day 8. 2016 Zero day 9. 2017 Zero day 10. 2018 Zero day 11. 2019 Ten months 12. 2020 Eleven months 13. 2021 Five months 14. 2022 Eleven months 15. 2023 Eight months 16. 2024 Twelve months 17. 2025 Eleven months 18. 2026 Two months till February