Mukesh Kumar & Others vs Executive Officer & Others

Lok Pal Singh, J

1) Petitioners have invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking writ in the nature of mandamus commanding respondent no. 1 to consider the claim of the petitioners to pay minimum of pay scale to them on the post of Safai Karamchari / Paryavaran Mitra in terms of Article 39(a) and (d) of the Constitution of India, as also in the light of observation made by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sabha Shanker Dube Vs Divisional Forest Officer and others, (2019) 1 Apex Court Journal 447.

2) Brief facts leading to filing of present writ petition are that petitioners, who are Safai Karamchari (now Paryavaran Mitra) were engaged by the Executive Officer, Nagar Palika, Bazpur, District Udham Singh Nagar on contract basis, on daily wages, between the period 1997 to 2004. It is averred in the writ petition that during the period 1997 to 2004, sanctioned strength of Safai Karamcharis / Paryavaran Mitra in the Nagar Palika Bazpur, District Udham Singh Nagar was much less than the required strength due to which sanitation work had suffered in said Nagar Palika. In order to cope with the problem, the Nagar Palika employed Safai Karamcharis on contract basis, on daily wages, in the year 1997 in excess of the sanctioned strength and this exercise continued till the year 2004. The said exercise was done in order to enable the Nagar Palika Parishad, Bazpur to fulfill its obligation of performing sanitation jobs in Bazpur. It is further averred that all the petitioners have completed 10 years service as Safai Karamchari in the Nagar Palika and had made a demand for their regularization on said posts. In the year 2014, the Board of Nagar Palika, Bazpur passed a resolution for regularizing services of 26 Safai Karamcharis, including the petitioners, who had been continuously working as Safai Karamchari in the Nagar Palika, Bazpur for the last several years. It is also averred that the daily wage, which is being paid to the petitioners, is far less than the minimum of pay scale payable to a Safai Karamchari / Paryavaran Mitra, working on regular basis. It is alleged that the petitioners are not paid any remuneration for the day they remained absent from duty.

3) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents brought on record.

4) Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners have made a representation dated 31.07.2018 (contained as Annexure 7 to the writ petition) to the respondent no. 1 raising their grievances, but despite the representation made by the petitioners, respondent no. 1 has not taken any decision on said representation and the same is pending since long. Learned Senior Counsel would further submit that respondent no. 1 be directed to decide the representation dated 31.07.2018 made by the petitioners as early as possible, as per law.

5) The innocuous prayer made by learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners is worth accepting.

6) Learned counsel for the respondent State has no objection to such an innocuous prayer.

7) Without entering into the merit of the case and on the submission of learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners, the writ petition is disposed of with the direction to the respondent no. 1 to consider and decide the representation dated 31.07.2018 (contained as Annexure 7 to the writ petition) by passing a reasoned and speaking order, in accordance with law, preferably within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order along with the copy of representation dated 31.07.2018 before him.

8) No order as to costs.