State of Uttarakhand vs Chandra Shekhar Joshi

Barin Ghosh, C.J.—In a writ petition, Petitioner approached the Hon''ble Allahabad High Court and contended that he was engaged with effect from 19th May, 1990, as a daily wage Draughtsman and after having had worked in such capacity for a considerable period of time, no sooner he asked for payment of salary at least in the minimum scale of pay applicable to Draughtsman, he was stopped from discharging his duties as a daily wage Draughtsman. On this writ petition, an interim order was passed, directing payment of salary to the Petitioner in the minimum scale applicable to Draughtsman. Subsequently, this writ petition was decided along with many other writ petitions, when there was no pronouncement that the Petitioner was, in fact, appointed as a daily wage Draughtsman. While, however, deciding the said writ petition along with other writ petitions, Hon''ble Allahabad High Court issued a direction upon the State to constitute a committee and through the said committee to scrutinize the matters pertaining to engagement of different daily wagers including the Petitioner. A committee thereupon considered the case of the Petitioner and held that the Petitioner was not engaged as a daily wage Draughtsman, he was engaged as a daily wage Class-IV employee. Despite holding thus, the committee felt that in view of the judgment of Umadevi ( Secretary, State of Karnataka and Others Vs. Umadevi and Others, ) and the engagement of the Petitioner being not by the competent authority, there is no scope of regularization of the Petitioner. In the circumstances, the Petitioner filed yet another writ petition. On the writ petition, a reference was made to a larger Bench for answer of certain legal questions. The larger Bench found that those legal questions do not arise in the matter. It held that since the principal dispute is, whether the Petitioner was appointed as a daily wage Draughtsman or as a Class-IV daily wager, the same can be decided by the writ court itself and, accordingly, remitted the matter back. Thereupon the writ court directed appropriate inquiries to be made in relation to two certificates, upon which reliance had been placed by the Petitioner to establish that he was engaged as a daily wage Draughtsman. Inquiry was made and it was found that those two certificates were genuine, namely, those have been genuinely issued by officers of the State, who are said to have issued the same.

Thereupon the writ petition was taken up for hearing before a learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge, according to us, correctly held that the ratio of the judgment rendered in Umadevi''s case (supra) has no application to the case in question, on the other hand, Petitioner is entitled to the benefits of the judgment rendered by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh v. Putti Lal, reported in [(1998) 1 UPLBEC 313]. The learned Single Judge thereupon looked into those certificates and held that in view of the said certificates, which are otherwise genuine, Petitioner should be paid the minimum pay scale of Draughtsman. This judgment was rendered on 30th June, 2009 and prior thereto Petitioner was regularized as a Forest Guard, a post available in Class-IV.

Being aggrieved by the judgment, thus rendered on 30th June, 2009, the present appeal has been preferred. Even in the instant appeal, the only dispute is, whether the Petitioner was engaged as a daily wage Draughtsman or as a daily wage Class-IV employee? In order to sort out the said dispute, unfortunately, apart from those two certificates, there is nothing else on record. As aforesaid, the genuineness of those two certificates had been found correct. In the circumstances, one has to proceed on the basis that the contents thereof are also correct. One certificate says that the Petitioner was engaged since 19th May, 1990 to assist the Draughtsman. The other certificate says that since 19th May, 1990, Petitioner was engaged as Draughtsman. Therefore, the contents of the certificates are mutually destructive to each other. If the Petitioner was engaged to assist Draughtsman, he could not be engaged as Draughtsman. In the event rules provided engagement of an assistant to the Draughtsman or an Assistant Draughtsman, then probably the contents of the certificates could be reconciled. However, the rules do not contemplate either an assistant to the Draughtsman or Assistant Draughtsman. In such view of the matter, these two certificates are no tool for determining, whether, in fact, the Petitioner was engaged as a daily wage Draughtsman or was engaged as daily wage employee to discharge duties of Class-IV employees? There remains no dispute that the Petitioner was engaged since both the certificates vouch for the same. At the best the Court can come to the conclusion that the Petitioner was engaged on daily wage basis for the purpose of assisting the Draughtsman. A Draughtsman will not assist another Draughtsman. A Draughtsman can be assisted by a person holding a post subordinate to the post of Draughtsman. It is not being contended that there is any other post in between the post of Draughtsman and Class-IV. Conclusion, therefore, will be that the Petitioner has been able to establish that he was a daily wage Class-IV employee.

We, accordingly, modify the judgment and order under appeal and direct payment of minimum pay scale applicable to Class-IV employees. We make it amply clear that this order is applicable in relation to the status of the writ Petitioner-Respondent, as was prevalent on the strength of his engagement as a daily wage worker and not in relation to his status as stood altered upon he was regularized as a Forest Guard.

This disposes of the appeal.