Allahabad High Court
Radhey Shyam And Ors. vs District Judge And Anr. on 13 May, 1996
Equivalent citations: (1997)1UPLBEC287
JUDGMENT R.B. Mehrotra, J.
1. Chhotey Lal, Sweeper of the Court of Sambhal moved an application that he is drawing salary only of Rs. 150 per month. He has got four daughters and son. It is difficult for him to maintain himself and his family in the aforesaid meagre amount and prayed that he should be provided salary adequate to maintain himself and his family. This application was moved on my inspection visit to Moradabad on 6, 7 and 8-11-1995. A similar application was moved by Radhey Shayam, Sweeper-cum-Farrash of Thakurdwara outline court who made a grievance that he was being paid salary only of Rs. 185 per month.
2. On both the aforesaid applications, I enquired and found that some Safai Karmacharis of the district courts had earlier made application to the effect that they should be provided minimum wages which are being paid to fourth class employees. The representation of the aforesaid Safai Karmacharis of the district courts was forwarded to the State Government.
3. On the aforesaid representation, the Deputy Secretary (Finance) vide Government Order, dated 15-10-1990, decided that the salary of all class four employees working throughout the State is raised to Rs. 750 per month. This Government order forms part of the record of the writ petition. However, despite the order of the Government the Safai Karmacharis of various districts were not being paid their due wages as determined by the Government, as the requisite information regarding number and strength of Safai Karmacharis district wise was not furnished to the Government by the Registrar of this Court, despite Government seeking such information from the High Court.
4. On receiving the aforesaid application and taking note of the situation that the Government Order, dated 15-10-1990 is not being implemented only on the basis that necessary information regarding strength of the Safai Karmacharis in the district courts has not been furnished by the Registrar of this Court, I on the administrative side asked the Registrar to take note of the situation and do the needful by dealing with on personal level. This administrative order also failed to bring any result. Consequent thereto, I issued an interim mandamus on 9-1-1996 treating the aforesaid application moved by two Safai Karmacharis as public interest petition and directed the State Government to sanction the salary at the rate of Rs. 785 per moth to the Safai Karmacharis of the subordinate courts on the basis of the information submitted by the Registrar within a month of the receipt of the information by the Registrar or show cause within the aforesaid period. In compliance of the aforesaid interim mandamus, no cause was shown. The State Government, however, came out with a Government Order dated 19-3-1996 sanctioning salary of Rs. 785 per month to the Sweeper-cum-Farrash employed in the district courts from the date of the Government order i.e., 19-3-1996. The matter was, however, further postponed for ensuring that the sanctioned salary has been paid to the Sweeper-cum-Farrash of the district courts in pursuance of the Government order and the Registrar of the Court was asked to furnish information in this regard from all the district courts. In compliance with the order of this Court, the Registrar has sent information to the district courts that they should report compliance of the court's order. The matter was adjourned twice by this Court, but final information has not yet reached this Court. There seems to be some communication gap, I see no reason as to why the District Judge will not report compliance of this Court's order.
5. The District Judge, Hardoi has even informed that he has not received the Government order. This shows that the necessary order of the Court along with Government order has not reached all the courts. However, since there is no dispute on the merits of the issue and the Government has already come out with its order dated 19-3-1996 santioning salary of Rs. 785 per month to Sweeper-cum-Farrash employed in the district courts, it is not necessary to further postpone the decision in this matter. Several District Judges have already informed that in persuance of the order of this Court and on pursuance of the Government order, Safai Karmcharis are being paid their salary at the rate of Rs. 785 per month.
6. The only issue which now remains to be determined in the present matter is as to from which date the Safai Karmacharis are entitled to receive the aforesaid salary. It is not disputed that the State Government came forward with a Government order dated 15-10-1990 fixing a salary of Rs. 750 per month as minimum wages for all the fourth class employees of the State at the rate of Rs. 750 per month. This Government order itself says that this order will apply to all fourth class employees irrespective of their classification and the order has been passed to do away the disparity between the wages of fourth class employees. It has not been disputed or debated before me in the present matter that the Safai Karmacharis employed in the district courts are not fourth class employees, as such it is clear that they are also entitled to get the minimum wages fixed by the Government order dated 15-10-1990.
7. These poor, uneducated and ignorant Safai Karmacharis cannot be blamed for not agitating the issue or making demand for getting the minimum wages as they are the oppressed-most section of the society and did not have courage to agitate the issue except by making the humble request to their officers which they did from time to time. This was only the fault of the bureaucracy of this Court which delayed their dues. In my order dated 9-1-1996 issuing interim mandamus, I have stated the circumstances under which the Safai Karmcharis could not agitate the issue. It is clear from the record of the case that the Safai Karmacharis of the district courts could not get their due wages only on the basis that despite Government asking the High Court to furnish necessary information regarding details of Safai Karmcharis employed in the district courts, the necessary information was not furnished to the Government, If any body is to be blamed for this situation, it is the Registry of this Court, which is responsible for continued exploitation of the Safai Karmcharis of the district courts who had no vice to agitate. A permanent Safai Karmchari working in the High Court gets initial start of somewhere about Rs. 2000 per month There is no difference in the working which a Safai Karmachari is doing in this Court and a Safai Karmchari doing in the district court paying at the rate of Rs. 185 per month to the Safai Karmcharis of the district courts was clearly an exploitation of their labour and was in violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
8. I am clearly of the view that the fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India include receiving wages for minimum subsistence and in any case it includes minimum wages fixed by the Government itself.
9. In the present case a decision was taken by the Government as far back as on 15-10-1990, I see no justification as to why the Safai Karmcharis should not get their minimum wages right from the date the Government came out with the notification dated 15-10-1990.
10. Under Article 32 of the Constitution, every citizen of this country has been given a fundamental right to move the Supreme Court for enforcement of rights which are guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution. The highest court of the country has simultaneously been conferred powers to issue directions, orders or writs including conventional Prerogative writs of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari, a terminology borrowed from English Law. This Article is of fundamental importance for maintaining the basic structure of the Constitution.
11. Justice K. Ramaswamy in his article (published in 1995 January-March Part of Judicial Training and Research Institute, U.P. Lucknow Journal) has said that not only the Apex Court but the subordinate courts also have greater role to play in this area. The declaratory reliefs by judicial process would enable common man to secure justice from lower court at cheaper cost. Expeditious adjudication would inculcate faith of the people in the efficacy law.
12. The Constitution has conferred similar jurisdiction to the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India though it is not a fundamental right guranteed under Part-III of the Constitution, the High Court has also equal responsibility and duty of ensuring enforcement of the fundamental rights of citizens when any such issue is brought to its notice In the present set of circumstances the High Court having taken cognizance of the fact that Safai Karmcharis of district courts who are essentially the employees in subordination, of this Court, this Court has an obligation to ensure that these oppressed employees get their dues and should not suffer for the fault of the bureaucracy of the High Court. This is a fact of life that despite almost half of century having been lapsed, after the enforcement of the Constitution of India very large section of the citizens of this country are not conversant with their rights, in such cases this is court's obligation to ensure that these rights reach to those persons who are not conversant with their rights.
13. In the facts of this case. I am clearly of the view that the Safai Karmcharis of the district courts are one of those oppressed section of the society who are not conversant with their rights and consequent thereto it is an obligation of this Court to ensure that Safai Karmcharis get their dues in pursuance of this decision.
14. In order to ensure that the decision of this Court is complied with, I am issuing following directions :
(i) A writ of mandamus, is issued directing the State Government to pay Rs. 750 per month from 15-10-1990 to 19-3-1996 and thereafter @ 785 per month to all the permanent Safai Karmcharis employed in the district courts from the said date or from the said date or from the date of their subsequent employment. The Government should comply with this mandamus within four months from the date of the receipt of the certified copy of this judgment along with necessary information furnished by the Registrar regarding details of the Safai Karmcharis employed in various district courts from 15-10-1990.
(ii) The Registrar of this Court is directed to furnish the necessary information regarding details of the Safai Karmcharis employed in the district courts from 15-10-1990 this date to the State Government within three months from to day alongwith the certified copy of this judgment.
(iii) The Registrar of this Court is further directed to send the copy of this judgment to all the District Judges of U. P, and the District Judges of all the districts are required to furnish necessary information within a month to the Registrar of this Court, either by FAX or by Telex. The Registrar will also send the information to all the District Judges either by FAX or by Telex subject to their availability within three weeks from today.
15. The compliance report will be placed before the Hon'ble Chief Justice of this Court as per directions given in this judgment within the requisite period. The copy of this judgment may also be brought to the notice of Hon'ble the Chief Justice for ensuring compliance of the order. Copy of judgment may also be forwarded to the State Government within three weeks for necessary information so that the State Government may arrange its finances for compliance of the order.
16. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of with the aforesaid directions. This decision should be brought to the notice of the Registrar of this Court immediately.