Devendra Singh Bhandari vs State of Uttarakhand

@DELETEUPPERDATA

Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.—The petitioners claim to be working on daily rated basis in the Forest Department. They claimed minimum salary/wages, which are payable to the Class-IV employees on which they have been working. In some of the writ petitions, the petitioners have been working since 1984 or near about and in other writ petitions after 2000 i.e. after the creation of Uttarakhand State. The common element which runs in all these writ petitions is that all the petitioners are claimed to have been working on daily rated basis and are getting a consolidated salary which varies between Rs. 2000/- to Rs. 4000/- and they claimed the minimum of pay scale. A similar controversy has been decided by this Court in WPSS No. 316 of 2014 in Beer Singh v. State of Uttarakhand & others along with connected petitions. The petitioners rely upon a decision of Hon''ble Apex Court in State of U.P. and Others Vs. Putti Lal, , relevant extract of which reads as under:--

"6. So far as the State of Uttaranchal is concerned, a scheme for regularization of daily workers has been produced before us which prima facie does not appear to be objectionable excepting the provision regarding qualification for regularization. Be it stated that the qualification essential for being regularized would be the qualification as was relevant on the date a particular employee was taken in as a daily wager and not the qualification which is being fixed under the scheme. The fact that the employees have been allowed to continue for so many years indicates the existence or the necessity for having such posts. But still, it would not be open for the Court to indicate as to how many posts would be created for the absorption of these daily wages workers. Needless to mention that the Appropriate Authority will consider the case of these daily wagers sympathetically who have discharged the duties for all these years to the satisfaction of their Authority concerned. So far as the salary is concerned, as we have stated in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh, a daily-wager in the State of Uttaranchal would be also entitled to the minimum of the pay-scale as is available to his counter-part in the Government until his services are regularized and he is given regular scale of pay."

In view of the above determination yet the petitioners are denied the minimum wages. There is absolutely no reason for denying minimum wages to the petitioners.

The judgment of State of U.P. & others v. Putti Lal, (supra) has continuously been followed by this Hon''ble Court and in the case of Atol Singh Vs. State of Uttarakhand and Others, , the learned single Judge of this Court vide order dated 15th June, 2012 had passed following order:--

"Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 5th July, 2010 is quashed and a writ of mandamus is issued commanding the respondents to pay the minimum of pay scale to the petitioners as per the letter of respondent No. 2 dated 9th November, 2009. Arrears, if any, should be paid within three months from the date of the production of a certified copy of the order."

There are two primary objections of the State while denying the minimum of pay scale to the petitioners. One is that some of the petitioners have not been working regularly and secondly their work is not perennial in nature, but their main contention is that the decision of Putti Lal (supra) is not applicable in their case, but was applicable only to those petitioners, who approached the Hon''ble Apex Court. As far as this contention is concerned, it is totally misconceived. The logic and the reasoning given by the Hon''ble Apex Court while granting minimum of pay scale to daily rated workers, till their services are regularized, are equally applicable in the case of the present petitioners as well. Therefore, they are also liable to be given minimum of pay scale, subject to the fact that they are working on a daily rated basis at the time when the writ petition was filed and secondly the work is of continuous nature. In case if it is so, the respondents are directed to pay the minimum pay scale to the petitioners. However, it is made clear, it is open to the respondents in case they find that the petitioners are not the daily rated workers and are not being working continuously, they may reject their claim, but while doing so they should assign reasons.

It is also made clear that in case the petitioners fulfill the above conditions that they are working on daily rated basis, and working is on continuous nature, then the Government Order dated 04.01.2013 shall also be made applicable in their case and the benefit of the same shall also be given in their case. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.