Mohan Swaroop and Another v. State of U.P. and Ors.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel for the State.

2. The present writ petition has been preferred for quashing of the impugned order dated 04.05.2023 passed by Divisional Forest Officer, Social Forestry, Forest Range, Sultanpur, whereby the claim for minimum of the pay-scale has been denied to the petitioners and with a further prayer to direct the opposite parties to forthwith grant the minimum of the pay-scale of Rs. 18,000/- as per 7th Pay Commission along with arrears since March 2018 to the petitioners on Class IV post, in terms of the judgment dated 17.11.2018 passed by this Court in Writ A No. 11964 of 2018 (Mohan Swaroop and Another v. State of U.P. and Ors.)

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that petitioners were initially appointed on the post of Gardener from the year 2012 to 2016 and since then, they are continuously functioning on the said post. It is further submitted that the claim of the minimum of the pay-scale has been denied by the opposite parties only on the ground that since petitioners are not entitled for regularization in terms of the relevant Rules of 2016 and since there is no such provision in the aforesaid Rules for grant of minimum of the pay-scale, they would not be entitled for such benefit.

4. It is further submitted that the said reason assigned in the impugned order rejecting the claim of the petitioners is against the law settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sabha Shanker Dube vs. Divisional Forest Officer and Ors., (2019) 12 SCC 297 against which no appeal has been preferred and prays for parity of the said judgment which has been passed on placing reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sabha Shanker Dube (supra). Relevant portion of the judgment in the case of Sabha Shanker Dube (supra) is quoted herein below:- " 10. On a comprehensive consideration of the entire law on the subject of parity of pay scales on the principle of equal pay for equal work, this Court in Jagjit Singh [State of Punjab v. Jagjit Singh, (2017) 1 SCC 148 : (2017) 1 SCC (L&S) 1] held as follows: (SCC p. 223, para 58) “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. 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 action is oppressive, suppressive and coercive, as it compels involuntary subjugation.”

11. The issue that was considered by this Court in Jagjit Singh [State of Punjab v. Jagjit Singh, (2017) 1 SCC 148 : (2017) 1 SCC (L&S) 1] 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 v. Tilak Raj, (2003) 6 SCC 123 : 2003 SCC (L&S) 828] and Surjit Singh [State of Punjab v. Surjit Singh, (2009) 9 SCC 514 : (2009) 2 SCC (L&S) 696] , 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. 12 [Ed.: Para 12 corrected vide Official Corrigendum No. F.3/Ed.B.J./111/2018 dated 4-7-2019.] . In view of the judgment in Jagjit Singh [State of Punjab v. Jagjit Singh, (2017) 1 SCC 148 : (2017) 1 SCC (L&S) 1] , 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 scales. We are not called upon to adjudicate on the rights of the appellants relating to the regularisation of their services. We are concerned only with the principle laid down by this Court initially in Putti Lal [State of U.P. v. Putti Lal, (2006) 9 SCC 337 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 1819] relating to persons who are similarly situated to the appellants and later affirmed in Jagjit Singh [State of Punjab v. Jagjit Singh, (2017) 1 SCC 148 : (2017) 1 SCC (L&S) 1] that temporary employees are entitled to minimum of the pay scales as long as they continue in service. "

5. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel is unable to distinguish the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sabha Shanker Dube (supra) passed after considering the judgment in the case of State of Punjab and Ors. vs. Jagjit Singh and Ors. [(2017) 1 SCC 148].

6. Considering aforesaid judgments of Hon'ble Supreme which are clearly applicable in the present facts and circumstances of the case, rejection of petitioners' representation only on the ground that they are not entitled for regularization does not hold a good ground once opposite parties themselves have admitted that they are continuing as a daily wage employee ever since the date of initial engagement in service and particularly since there is no denial in the impugned order of the fact that they are performing the same duties and functions as that of regular of employees. The learned Standing Counsel is unable to distinguish the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court mentioned above.

7. In view of the aforesaid, the impugned order dated 04.05.2023 passed by opposite party no. 5/Divisional Forest Officer, Social Forestry, Forest Range, Sultanpur is quashed by issuance of writ in the nature of certiorari. Further writ in the nature of mandamus is issued commanding the opposite parties to ensure payment of minimum of the pay scale as applicable to regular employees working on equivalent posts.

8. Resultantly, writ petition succeeds and is allowed. Parties to bear their own cost. Order Date :- 14.7.2025 prabhat

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel for the State.

2. The present writ petition has been preferred for quashing of the impugned order dated 04.05.2023 passed by Divisional Forest Officer, Social Forestry, Forest Range, Sultanpur, whereby the claim for minimum of the pay-scale has been denied to the petitioners and with a further prayer to direct the opposite parties to forthwith grant the minimum of the pay-scale of Rs. 18,000/- as per 7th Pay Commission along with arrears since March 2018 to the petitioners on Class IV post, in terms of the judgment dated 17.11.2018 passed by this Court in Writ A No. 11964 of 2018 (Mohan Swaroop and Another v. State of U.P. and Ors.)

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that petitioners were initially appointed on the post of Gardener from the year 2012 to 2016 and since then, they are continuously functioning on the said post. It is further submitted that the claim of the minimum of the pay-scale has been denied by the opposite parties only on the ground that since petitioners are not entitled for regularization in terms of the relevant Rules of 2016 and since there is no such provision in the aforesaid Rules for grant of minimum of the pay-scale, they would not be entitled for such benefit.

4. It is further submitted that the said reason assigned in the impugned order rejecting the claim of the petitioners is against the law settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sabha Shanker Dube vs. Divisional Forest Officer and Ors., (2019) 12 SCC 297 against which no appeal has been preferred and prays for parity of the said judgment which has been passed on placing reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sabha Shanker Dube (supra). Relevant portion of the judgment in the case of Sabha Shanker Dube (supra) is quoted herein below:- " 10. On a comprehensive consideration of the entire law on the subject of parity of pay scales on the principle of equal pay for equal work, this Court in Jagjit Singh [State of Punjab v. Jagjit Singh, (2017) 1 SCC 148 : (2017) 1 SCC (L&S) 1] held as follows: (SCC p. 223, para 58) “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. 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 action is oppressive, suppressive and coercive, as it compels involuntary subjugation.”

11. The issue that was considered by this Court in Jagjit Singh [State of Punjab v. Jagjit Singh, (2017) 1 SCC 148 : (2017) 1 SCC (L&S) 1] 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 v. Tilak Raj, (2003) 6 SCC 123 : 2003 SCC (L&S) 828] and Surjit Singh [State of Punjab v. Surjit Singh, (2009) 9 SCC 514 : (2009) 2 SCC (L&S) 696] , 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. 12 [Ed.: Para 12 corrected vide Official Corrigendum No. F.3/Ed.B.J./111/2018 dated 4-7-2019.] . In view of the judgment in Jagjit Singh [State of Punjab v. Jagjit Singh, (2017) 1 SCC 148 : (2017) 1 SCC (L&S) 1] , 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 scales. We are not called upon to adjudicate on the rights of the appellants relating to the regularisation of their services. We are concerned only with the principle laid down by this Court initially in Putti Lal [State of U.P. v. Putti Lal, (2006) 9 SCC 337 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 1819] relating to persons who are similarly situated to the appellants and later affirmed in Jagjit Singh [State of Punjab v. Jagjit Singh, (2017) 1 SCC 148 : (2017) 1 SCC (L&S) 1] that temporary employees are entitled to minimum of the pay scales as long as they continue in service. "

5. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel is unable to distinguish the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sabha Shanker Dube (supra) passed after considering the judgment in the case of State of Punjab and Ors. vs. Jagjit Singh and Ors. [(2017) 1 SCC 148].

6. Considering aforesaid judgments of Hon'ble Supreme which are clearly applicable in the present facts and circumstances of the case, rejection of petitioners' representation only on the ground that they are not entitled for regularization does not hold a good ground once opposite parties themselves have admitted that they are continuing as a daily wage employee ever since the date of initial engagement in service and particularly since there is no denial in the impugned order of the fact that they are performing the same duties and functions as that of regular of employees. The learned Standing Counsel is unable to distinguish the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court mentioned above.

7. In view of the aforesaid, the impugned order dated 04.05.2023 passed by opposite party no. 5/Divisional Forest Officer, Social Forestry, Forest Range, Sultanpur is quashed by issuance of writ in the nature of certiorari. Further writ in the nature of mandamus is issued commanding the opposite parties to ensure payment of minimum of the pay scale as applicable to regular employees working on equivalent posts.

8. Resultantly, writ petition succeeds and is allowed. Parties to bear their own cost. Order Date :- 14.7.2025 prabhat