Allahabad High Court
State Of U.P. And Another vs Dr. Gangesh Dixit And 4 Others on 2 December, 2020
Author: Govind Mathur
Bench: Govind Mathur, Piyush Agrawal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD Chief Justice's Court Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 517 of 2019 Appellant :- State Of U.P. And Another Respondent :- Dr. Gangesh Dixit And 4 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Pankaj Rai Counsel for Respondent :- Man Mohan Singh With Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 515 of 2020 Appellant :- State Of U.P. Through Principal Secretary (Higher Education) And Another Respondent :- Dr. Pushpendra Kumar Gangwar And 34 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Pranab Kumar Ganguli Counsel for Respondent :- Man Mohan Singh With Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 772 of 2020 Appellant :- State Of U.P. And Another Respondent :- Dr. Suchitra Mishra And 25 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Pranab Kumar Ganguli Counsel for Respondent :- Durga Tiwari With Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 807 of 2020 Appellant :- State Of U.P. And Another Respondent :- Dr. Rashmi Tripathi And 20 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Pranab Kumar Ganguli Counsel for Respondent :- Durga Tiwari With Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 815 of 2020 Appellant :- State Of U.P. And Another Respondent :- Dr. Anuradha Tiwari And 81 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Pranab Kumar Ganguli Counsel for Respondent :- Man Mohan Singh With Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 817 of 2020 Appellant :- State Of U.P. And Another Respondent :- Dr. Rajesh Kumar Trivedi And 96 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Pranab Kumar Ganguli Counsel for Respondent :- Man Mohan Singh Hon'ble Govind Mathur,Chief Justice Hon'ble Piyush Agrawal,J.
1. This appeal is barred by limitation from 66 days. Ignoring the same, we have looked into the merits of the case.
2. The appeals aforesaid are preferred to question the correctness of the judgement dated 13th February 2019 passed by learned Single Bench in Writ A No. 26100 of 2018.
3. Under the judgement impugned, learned Single Bench while accepting the petition for writ issued a writ in the nature of mandamus to extend the benefits of payment of wages at minimum pay scale relating to post of teachers with effect from 1st January, 2016.
4. The arguments advanced by learned counsel appearing on behalf of State is that respondents-petitioners were not regular member of the service and as such they are not entitled to have fixation of their pay in the pay scale applicable for regular employees.
5. We do not find any merit in the arguments advanced. Learned Single Bench has not treated the respondents-petitioners as regular employees prior to their regularisation in service and has also not given any direction to treat the respondents-petitioners at par with regular teachers. It is admitted position that the respondents-petitioners were working as a teachers in pursuance of a decision taken by the Government and their payments were not in accordance with the Rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India or its proviso. The respondents- petitioners simply claimed grant of pay at the minimum of regular pay scale on the basis of principle of doctrine ''equal pay for equal work', which is substantiated by Article 39 (d) read with Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The doctrine aforesaid in the similar circumstances has already been approved by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in several cases including Randhir Singh Vs. Union of India and others reported in AIR 1982, SC 879. In the case aforesaid the Apex Court observed that ''equal pay for equal work' is not a mere demagogic slogan though it is a constitutional goal capable of attainment through constitutional remedies by the enforcement of constitutional rights. The principle aforesaid has been further relied in the cases of State of Punjab Vs. Jagjit Singh and others, AIR, 2016, SC 5176 and Subha Shankar Dube Vs. Divisional Forest Officer, AIR 2019, SC 220.
6. In the instant matter, learned Single Bench by relying upon the judgements aforesaid has issued directions to allow pay to the respondents-petitioners at minimum of the pay scale applicable on teachers with effect from 1st January, 2016. The direction given is in consonance to the doctrine of ''equal pay for equal work' and it does not suffer from any error that may warrant interference in the appellate jurisdiction.
7. The appeals as such having lack of merit dismissed accordingly.
Order Date :- 2.12.2020 Rahul Dwivedi/-
(Govind Mathur,C.J.) (Piyush Agrawal,J.)