Allahabad High Court
Rammurti Devi vs State Of U.P. And 4 Others on 4 September, 2025
Author: Manju Rani Chauhan
Bench: Manju Rani Chauhan
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:156396
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - A No. - 21349 of 2018
Rammurti Devi
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 4 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s)
:
Mahesh Sharma, S.M. Iqbal Hasan, Vinod Sinha
Counsel for Respondent(s)
:
C.S.C., Yatindra
Court No. - 52
HON'BLE MRS. MANJU RANI CHAUHAN, J.
Heard Mr. S.M. Iqbal Hasan, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Yatindra, learned counsel for the respondent nos.2 & 3 as well as Mr. Hare Ram, learned Standing Counsel for the State.
The present petition has been filed with the following prayers :-
"I) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of to mandamus directing the respondents directing the respondent to regularize the services of the petitioner on the post of Safai Karmchari/Class-IV post in Junior High School Dangarh, Block Danpur, District Bulandshahar under "The Uttar Pradesh Regularization of Persons working on Daily Wages or On Work Charge or On Contract in the government departments on Group "C" and Group "D" Posts (outside the purview of The Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission) Rules 2016.
II) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to pay the arrears of salary/wages w.e.f. September 2017 to till date on the Principle of "Equal Pay for Equal Work' as has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab and Others Vs. Jagjit Singh and Others reported in 2017(1) SCC148, along with interest and pay her salary continuously as and when it falls due, till her services on the post of Safai Karmchari (Class-IV Post) is regularized under Rule 2016.
III) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent No. 2, 3 and 4 to decide the representation dated 2.8.2018 (Annexure No. 6 to the writ petition)."
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed as a Safai Karmchari on daily wage/short term basis in Junior High School known as Kanya Junior High School, Dangarh, Block Danpur, District- Bulandshahar, which is a senior basic school run by the Basic Education Board on 1.3.1989. She was initially being paid Rs.50/- per month. In the year 1997, the monthly honorarium of the petitioner was enhanced up to Rs.150/- per month and later by the Government Order dated 20.08.2007, the same was further enhanced to Rs.450/- per month. Since 2007, the petitioner has been receiving Rs.450/- per month and has continuously worked on the post of Safai Karmchari without there being any complaint against her.
He further submits that the petitioner moved a representation before the authorities concerned, requesting for regularization of her services and payment of her wages on the principle of "Equal Pay for Equal Work" as the services of Class-IV employees/Safai Karmchari are governed by the Uttar Pradesh Basic Education Staff Rules, 1973, but there is no specific procedure for appointment of Class-IV employees, therefore, for appointment on Class-IV posts, Group-D Employees Service Rules, 1985 has to be considered. Thus, the terms and conditions of service of the Class-IV employees who are working in the government schools are to be regulated as per the Employees Service Rules, 1985. The petitioner was being paid Rs.450/- per month but in August, 2017, her honorarium was stopped without any rhyme or reason. The petitioner approached the authorities concerned and after inquiring that the petitioner was working as Safai Karmchari, her payment was released. He further submits that despite several representations, nothing has been done till date.
Learned counsel for the petitioner also contends that non-consideration of the claim of the petitioner is arbitrary. The Government School in which the petitioner is working as Safai Karmchari has a strength of near about 200 to 250 students. She has been assigned the work of cleaning toilets, bathrooms and other cleaning work. Learned counsel for the petitioner relying upon the judgment and observations made by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Writ-A No.9927 of 2020 (Chandrawati Devi vs. State of U.P. And 6 Others) as decided on 15.12.2020, submits that she is entitled to be considered for regularization and payment of wages as per the work assigned to her, therefore, a direction may be issued for considering the regularization of the petitioner and payment of wages relying upon the principle of "Equal Pay for Equal Work". He has also relied upon a judgment passed by Apex Court in the case of The State of Gujarat & Ors. vs. Talsibhai Dhanjibhai Patel reported in 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 187.
On the other hand, Mr. Yatindra, learned counsel for respondent-B.S.A., relying upon the judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.1689 of 2023 (Arising out of SLP (C) No.13426/2020) (The Director of Education (Basic) Lucknow & Ors. vs. Awadh Rani (Dead) Through LRS.) as well as judgment passed by Division Bench of this Court in Special Appeal No. - 86 of 2004 (Basic Shiksha Adhikari Sitapur and others vs. Mishri Lal and others) submits that the petitioner is not entitled for the relief as claimed. He has also emphasized upon page no.13 of the rejoinder affidavit to show the nature of appointment of the petitioner which is as follows :-
"?????? ????? ??????
???????? ?? ???? ???????? ?? ?? ?? ??????? ????????? ???? ?? ???? ?????? ??? ?? ????? ?? ???? ????? ??????? ????????? ???? ???? ????? ?? ??????? 1.3.89 ?? ??? ???? ?????? ??? ?? ??? ?? ????????? ?? ???????? ?? ??????? ?? ????? ???? ?? ?????? ?? ???? ???? ????? ?? ???? ????? ?? ??? ???? ???? ???????? ?????? ??? ????? ???? ?????? 16.12.1070 ???"
Learned counsel for the respondent-B.S.A. further contends that the judgements relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner are not applicable in the present facts of the case, as the nature of appointment of the petitioner is different from that in the judgments are relied upon by him. He also submits that the issue has already been decided by this Court in the case of Smt. Shiv Kumari vs. State of U.P. And 7 Ors. (Writ-A No.47749 of 2016) as decided on 11.8.2025 in which the Court has held as under :-
"16. This Court finds that contractual appointee has no vested right to renewal or regularization. A contractual appointee holds the post only for the period specified in the contract. On expiry of the contractual term, the appointment automatically comes to an end by efflux of time. Such an appointee has no legal or vested right to seek renewal or continuation unless the contract itself provides for it."
Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed.However, in case any arrears of honorarium are due, the petitioner shall be at liberty to approach before the authorities concerned for the same, who shall do the needfull, in accordance with law, subject to verification of the work done by the petitioner.
(Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.) September 4, 2025 Kalp Nath Singh