Krishna v. State Of U.P. And 2 Others

Petitioner :- Krishna Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Daya Shankar Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Prakash Padia,J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for respondent-State.

The petitioner has preferred the present petition with the following prayer:- "(i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to pay the petitioner minimum of the pay of class IV in view of Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision dated 14-11-2018 passed in Civil Appeal No. 10956 of 2018 Sabha Shankar Dubey Vs. Divisional Forest Officer and Others"

In support of his claim, learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon Writ A No.15530 of 2024 (Keshav Prasad Vs. State of U.P. and others) in which following order was passed by on 07.01.2025 :- "The petitioner is a daily wager, a Class IV employee working with the Deputy Director Ranipur Tiger Reserve/Divisional Forest Officer, Chitrakoot. The grievance of the petitioner is that he is being paid total emoluments in the sum of Rs. 6162/- per month. The submission is that he is entitled to be paid minimum pay-scale at the rate of Rs. 18,000/- per month in accordance with the Seventh Pay Commission. He has represented his case a number of times, but to no avail. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Sabha Shanker Dube v. Divisional Forest Officer and another, (2019) 12 SCC 297. In Sabha Shanker Dube (supra) it was held :

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.

3. .....

14. For the aforementioned reasons, we allow these appeals and set aside the judgments of the High Court holding that the appellants are entitled to be paid the minimum of the pay scales applicable to regular employees working on the same posts. The State of Uttar Pradesh is directed to make payment of the minimum of pay scales to the appellants with effect from 1-12-2018. Learned standing counsel informed that present controversy is engaging attention of this Court in Writ A No. 9383 of 2023 in which counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged. Therefore, this petition may also be connected with that matter. Accordingly, connect with Writ A No. 9383 of 2023 and list on 28.01.2025 along with connected matter. In the meantime, parties are directed to exchange their pleadings. Until further orders of this Court, petitioner shall be paid the minimum pay admissible to a regular Class-IV employee, working in the Forest Department on a month to month basis. However, the petitioner shall not be entitled to any allowances or increment. "

It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that since the controversy involved in the present petition is absolutely identical, the petitioner is entitled for the same relief.

Matter requires consideration.

All the respondents are granted three weeks time to file counter affidavit.

Rejoinder affidavit, if any, may be filed within two weeks thereafter.

List after exchange of affidavits.

Until further orders of this Court, petitioner shall be paid the minimum pay admissible to a regular Class-IV employee, working in the Forest Department on a month to month basis. However, the petitioner shall not be entitled to any allowances or increment. Order Date :- 11.2.2025 Arti