Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Secretary Gramin Vikas And Panchayati ... vs Kedar Lal Sen S/O Shri Ganpat Lal Sen ... on 27 March, 2023
Bench: Ashok Kumar Gaur, Ashutosh Kumar
[2023/RJJP/004944]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 869/2018
1. Secretary Gramin Vikas & Panchayati Raj Deptt.
Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Director, Gramin Vikas & Panchayati Raj Deptt.
Secretariat, Jaipur.
3. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Kota.
4. Block Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Sultanpur,
Distt. Kota.
----Appellants/Respondents
Versus Kedar Lal Sen S/o Shri Ganpat Lal Sen, Aged About 52 Years, Resident Of Gram Budadeet, The, Degod, Distt. Kota.
----Petitioner/Respondent For appellants(s) : Mr.C.L.Saini, AAG with Ms.Srijna Sresth, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Mr.K.C.Sharma, Adv. with Ms.Nidhi Sharma, Adv.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR GAUR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR Order Reportable 27/03/2023 This case has a chequered history. The instant special appeal has been filed by the appellants-State employer challenging the order dated 09.08.2017 passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby the respondent-employee has been denied the benefit of regularization of his services but has been granted minimum pay in the pay scale of Class-IV employee.
(Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 04:41:06 PM) [2023/RJJP/004944] (2 of 20) [SAW-869/2018]
2. The present appeal was filed belatedly and as such the Coordinate Bench of this Court on 21.10.2021 dismissed the application of the State filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act by a detailed order.
3. The order dated 21.10.2021 was put to challenge by the appellants-State before the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.1873/2022 (SLP(C) No.4248/2022) and the Apex Court allowed the Special Leave Petition of the State and order of the High Court dated 21.10.2021, was set aside and delay in filing the appeal was also condoned. The Apex Court remitted the matter back to the High Court for deciding on merits, in accordance with law. However, the order passed by the Learned Single Judge was to remain stayed till such time an application for stay was decided by the Division Bench.
4. Learned Additional Advocate General Mr. C.L. Saini has made following the submissions challenging the order dated 09.08.2017 passed by the Learned Single Judge:-
4.1. The learned Single Judge could not have decided the disputed questions of fact in the writ petition filed by the respondent-employee under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
4.2. The respondent-employee since was not appointed against the sanctioned posts, as such the relief of minimum pay in the pay scale of Class-IV employee, was not permissible in the eye of law.
4.3. The very first appointment order of the respondent-
employee was on part time basis and as such no right was conferred in favour of the respondent-employee being a part (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 04:41:06 PM) [2023/RJJP/004944] (3 of 20) [SAW-869/2018] time employee, to claim the benefit of either regularization or minimum pay in the regular pay scale of Class-IV employee.
4.4. The findings of the Learned Single Judge in respect of treating the respondent-employee as a part time employee is contrary to record and the experience certificate issued in favour of the respondent-employee since did not bear any dispatch number, the same is not an official document to support claim of the employee.
4.5. The very first appointment order of the respondent- employee was of a part time employee, as such no right could have been claimed even on the basis of appointment order issued in favour of the respondent-employee. 4.6. Learned counsel submitted that the State has enacted The Rajasthan (Regulation of Appointments to Public Services and Rationalisation of Staff) Act, 1999 (hereinafter read as the 'Act of 1999') and as per Section 9 of the Act of 1999, even a daily wage employee or the person appointed on an urgent temporary basis, will not have a right of regularization of services and as such learned Single Judge without considering the impact of Section 9 of the Act of 1999, has passed the impugned order.
4.7. The Apex Court has consistently laid down the principle that in absence of the sanctioned post neither regularization nor minimum pay in a particular pay scale is admissible. 4.8. The judgments relied by the learned Single Judge were not applicable in the facts of present case and on the (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 04:41:06 PM) [2023/RJJP/004944] (4 of 20) [SAW-869/2018] contrary, as per law declared by the Apex Court in the case of State of Bihar & Ors. Vs. Bihar Secondary Teachers Struggle Committee, Munger & Ors. reported in (2019) 18 SCC 301, the principle of equal pay for equal work will not be applicable in respect of the employees, who are not appointed by proper & regular process of recruitment.
5. Learned counsel for the appellants-State has placed reliance on a judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Union of India & Ors. Vs. Ilmo Devi & Anr. reported in AIR 2021 SC 4855 and judgment passed by the Division Bench in the case of D.B.Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.927/2020 (The State of Rajasthan & Anr. Vs. Anil Kumar & Anr.) decided on 07.09.2022.
6. Learned AAG submitted that the reliance placed by the Learned Single Judge on the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab & Ors. Vs. Jagjit Singh & Ors. reported in (2017) 1 SCC 148, is wholly misplaced, as the said judgment had considered the principle of equal pay for equal work to the temporary employees, who were appointed on the sanctioned post and as such in absence of such sanctioned post, the respondent-employee was not entitled for any relief, as per law declared by the Apex Court.
7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-employee submitted that the order passed by the learned Single Judge is perfect in the eye of law and no interference is required by the Division Bench.
(Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 04:41:06 PM) [2023/RJJP/004944] (5 of 20) [SAW-869/2018]
8. Learned counsel Mr.K.C.Sharma for the respondent-employee submitted that the learned Single Judge while partly allowing the writ petition in favour of the respondent-employee, has clearly recorded a finding on the basis of the documents produced before him relating to actual working of the respondent-employee as a regular employee and as such after considering the documents placed on record, learned Single Judge has come to the conclusion that the respondent-employee was working from 9:00 A.M. to 4:00 P.M. and he was not a part time employee.
9. Learned counsel for the respondent-employee, in support of the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge, has made following submissions:-
9.1. The appellants-State has not taken any specific ground in the memo of appeal, where genuineness of experience certificate issued in favour of the respondent-employee, has been doubted by them and as such the State has waived its right to challenge the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge relating to actual working of the respondent-
employee.
9.2. Learned Single Judge has not considered the claim of the respondent-employee in respect of his regularization but after reaching to the conclusion on the basis of documents of the respondent-employee regarding his 8 hours working, the benefit of minimum pay in the regular pay scale of Class-IV employee has been given.
9.3. Learned counsel submitted that the respondent- employee has been forced to enter into protected litigation, (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 04:41:06 PM) [2023/RJJP/004944] (6 of 20) [SAW-869/2018] as earlier his services were terminated by the appellants- State in the year 1995 by an oral termination with effect from 11.05.1995 and thereafter the petitioner had to file S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.733/1996 and learned Single Judge vide order dated 13.09.1998, allowed the writ petition and set aside oral termination order after 17 years of service at that point of time and as such the respondent-employee was directed to be reinstated in service with full back wages, which he had last drawn and his case for regularization was also to be considered as and when the sanctioned post of Class-IV employee, was available as per his seniority.
Learned counsel submitted that the appellants-State instead of regularizing the service of the respondent- employee, even did not grant the minimum pay in the regular pay scale of Class-IV employee after working of almost 40 years and as such the State has taken 'Begar' for entire life of the respondent-employee and his family members by not even paying him the minimum salary in the pay scale of Class-IV employee.
9.4. Learned counsel submitted that plea of the appellants- State that the sanctioned post is a condition precedent for grant of minimum pay scale, is absolutely contrary to the settled principle of law and requirement of sanctioned post can only be made contingent for grant of regularization and as such learned Single Judge has rightly passed the order. 9.5. Learned counsel submitted that since the benefit of regularization has not been allowed by the learned Single Judge and as such plea of the State that there is a statutory (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 04:41:06 PM) [2023/RJJP/004944] (7 of 20) [SAW-869/2018] bar of regularization of services, as per Section 9 of the Act of 1999, is not applicable and wholly misplaced. 9.6. Learned counsel for the respondent-employee further submitted that the documents which have been filed by the appellants - State during pendency of the appeal, clearly shows that the respondent-employee was treated as a regular employee of the appellants-State and accordingly on completion of age of superannuation i.e. 60 years, he came to be retired.
Learned counsel submitted that had the respondent- employee being a part time employee, as such there was no necessity of issuing any order of retiring the respondent- employee on attaining the age of superannuation and even the previous documents along-with subsequent documents passed during pendency of the appeal reflects that the appellants-State has always treated the respondent- employees, as a regular employee.
9.7. Learned counsel submitted that the Apex Court in the case of Union of India & Ors. Vs. Ilmo Devi & Anr. (supra), though has set aside the order passed by the Punjab & Haryana High Court, however, the directions given in para 23 of the judgment of the High Court has been affirmed in favour of the employees, wherein the employees, who had put in 20 years of service, are held to be entitled for grant of minimum pay in the regular pay scale and as such the said judgment of Union of India & Ors. Vs. Ilmo Devi & Anr. (supra), supports the case of the respondent- employee, instead it goes against the appellants - State. (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 04:41:06 PM) [2023/RJJP/004944] (8 of 20) [SAW-869/2018] 9.8. Learned counsel further submitted that the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of The State of Rajasthan & Anr. Vs. Anil Kumar & Anr. (supra), has considered the issue of regularization of a part time employee, as was considered by the learned Single Judge.
9.9. Learned counsel submitted that the Division Bench, in the said judgment itself, has observed that if there is a documentary evidence or appropriate order to show that an employee is a part time employee but working for the equal hours as of any other Class-IV employee, then in the said case such employee can raise a case of similar wages, which is being paid to the other regular employees. 9.10. Learned counsel submitted that the directions given by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court to the employee to go to the Labour Court for seeking adjudication in respect of minimum pay in the pay scale of Class-IV employee, will not be applicable in the facts of the present case, as the respondent-employee has already attained the age of superannuation on 31.01.2018.
10. We have heard the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through various judgments cited before us.
11. This Court is primarily required to consider as whether the respondent-employee has rightly been given the relief of grant of minimum pay in the pay scale of Class-IV employee or not.
12. This Court finds that prayer of the petitioner (herein appeared as respondent-employee) before the learned Single (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 04:41:06 PM) [2023/RJJP/004944] (9 of 20) [SAW-869/2018] Judge was for regularization of his services as a Class-IV employee, as there was already a direction by the High Court in earlier round of litigation and further the petitioner had prayed for grant of minimum pay in the pay scale of Class-IV employee under the principle of "equal pay for equal work". The petitioner had also additionally prayed that the payment of Rs.210/- per month was required to be declared arbitrary and unreasonable decision of the appellants-State.
13. We find that the learned Single Judge after considering the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka and Ors. Vs. Umadevi and Ors. reported in AIR 2006 SC 1806, found that the respondent-employee was not entitled for regularization and accordingly the prayer of regularization was declined by the learned Single Judge.
14. We have considered the discussion made by the learned Single Judge in respect of entitlement of the respondent-employee for grant of minimum pay in the pay scale of Class-IV employee, on account of regular working of the petitioner in the school from 9:00 A.M. to 4:00 P.M. and his work being found satisfactory.
15. We find that the learned Single Judge also considered the certificate, which was issued by the Principal of the School concerned, as such he found that the appellants-State had not made correct statement and had not taken the correct stand in their reply and as such the certificate issued in favour of the respondent-employee, was not questioned or denied.
16. Learned Single Judge has recorded in its finding that the respondent-employee was working regularly according to the time table of the school from 9:00 A.M. to 4:00 P.M. and as such claim (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 04:41:06 PM) [2023/RJJP/004944] (10 of 20) [SAW-869/2018] of the respondent-employee was found to be valid for grant of minimum pay in the pay scale of Class-IV employee.
17. The submission of learned counsel for the appellants-State that the certificate, so relied by the learned Single Judge does not has any dispatch number and the same is not an official document, which can be relied upon, this Court finds that the certificate, which was issued in favour of the respondent- employee, had clearly mentioned that the respondent-employee was working from 9:00 A.M. to 4:00 P.M. on a regular basis and his services were satisfactory.
18. The non-mentioning of dispatch number or any endorsement to the Higher Officials, will not make the experience certificate to be doubtful in nature and the certificate issued was to the extent of actual working of the respondent-employee, as such it will be too late in a day to say that the certificate was a forged one or was not having any valid importance for the purpose of judging the experience of the person concerned.
19. The submission of learned counsel for the appellants-State that the disputed question of facts were involved in the petition and as such the writ petition was not a proper remedy, this Court finds that the appointment order was issued by the State- employer in the year 1979 and from then the person was continuously working and his services were terminated in the year 1995 and thereafter, this Court allowed the writ petition of the respondent-employee and even the oral termination order was found to be not sustainable in the eye of law and as such it will not allowed to be pleaded before this Court that the disputed (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 04:41:06 PM) [2023/RJJP/004944] (11 of 20) [SAW-869/2018] questions of facts required proper adjudication from the Labour Court or any other forum like Civil Court.
20. This Court finds that in the writ of mandamus, if there is disputed question of facts, the Courts would not normally interfere in such matters, however, if illusory disputed question of facts are raised before the Court, then the High Court can definitely go into this aspect, as whether the plea of a disputed question of fact is a real plea, which requires adjudication by way of leading evidence or the same plea is taken only to deny benefit to the party concerned or to the employee concerned.
21. This Court finds that where writ petition involves pure disputed questions of fact, the High Court should be loath in entertaining the petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. However, it is a rule of self-restraint and not a hard and fast rule.
22. The Apex Court has dealt with the issue of entertaining the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India even where a litigant raises a dispute with regard to the facts of the case.
23. The Apex Court in the case of ABL International Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Export Credit Guarantee Corn of India Ltd. & Ors. reported in (2004) 3 SCC 353 has held as under:-
"19. Therefore, it is clear from the above enunciation of law that merely because one of the par ties to the litigation raises a dispute in regard to the facts of the case, the court entertaining such petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is not always bound to relegate the parties to a suit. In the above case of Gunwant Kaur [(1969) 3 SCC 769] this Court even went to the extent of holding that in a writ petition, if the facts require, even oral evidence can be taken.(Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 04:41:06 PM)
[2023/RJJP/004944] (12 of 20) [SAW-869/2018] This clearly shows that in an appropriate case, the writ court has the jurisdiction to entertain a writ petition involving disputed questions of fact and there is no absolute bar for entertaining a writ petition even if the same arises out of a contractual obligation and/or involves some disputed questions of fact"
While summing up the conclusions in the aforesaid case, this Court concluded thus:
27. From the above discussion of ours, the following legal principles emerge as to the maintainability of a writ petition:-
(a) In an appropriate case, a writ petition as against a State or an instrumentality of a State arising out of a contractual obligation is maintainable.
(b) Merely because some disputed questions of fact arise for consideration, same cannot be a ground to refuse to entertain a writ petition in all cases as a matter of rule.
(c) A writ petition involving a consequential relief of monetary claim is also maintainable.
28. However, while entertaining an objection as to the maintainability of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Court should bear in mind the fact that the power to issue prerogative writs under Article 226 of the Constitution is plenary in nature and is not limited by any other provisions of the Constitution. The High Court having regard to the facts of the case, has a discretion to entertain or not to entertain a writ petition. The Court has imposed upon itself certain restrictions in the exercise of this power. (See Whirlpool Corpn. v. Registrar of Trade Marks [(1998) 8 SCC 1].) And this plenary right of the High Court to issue a prerogative writ will not normally be exercised by the Court to the exclusion of other available remedies unless such action of the State or its instrumentality is arbitrary and unreasonable so as to violate the constitutional mandate of Article 14 or for other valid and legitimate reasons, for which the Court thinks it necessary to exercise the said jurisdiction."
(Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 04:41:06 PM) [2023/RJJP/004944] (13 of 20) [SAW-869/2018]
24. This Court finds that the Apex Court recently in the case of Popatrao Vyankatrao Patil Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. reported in (2020) 19 SCC 241 has reiterated the principle, as was laid down in the case of ABL International Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Export Credit Guarantee Corn of India Ltd. & Ors. (supra).
25. The Apex Court in the case of Popatrao Vyankatrao Patil Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. (supra) has held that the High Court is not precluded from entertaining the petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, if the same does not require elaborate evidence to be adduced, however, the power is to be exercised in exceptional circumstances.
26. The relevant para 6 of the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Popatrao Vyankatrao Patil Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. (supra) is quoted hereunder:-
"It could thus be seen, that even if there are disputed questions of fact which fall for consideration but if they do not require elaborate evidence to be adduced, the High Court is not precluded from entertaining a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. However, such a plenary power has to be exercised by the High Court in exceptional circumstances. The High Court would be justified in exercising such a power to the exclusion of other available remedies only when it finds that the action of the State or its instrumentality is arbitrary and unreasonable and, as such, violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. In any case, in the present case, we find that there are hardly any disputed questions of facts."(Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 04:41:07 PM)
[2023/RJJP/004944] (14 of 20) [SAW-869/2018]
27. This Court has to now consider as whether action of the State is arbitrary and unreasonable and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, in the facts of the present case.
28. The following facts, as available on record, makes decision of the appellants-State, as arbitrary and unreasonable:-
(i) The services of the respondent have been taken by the appellants since 1978 and the respondent-employee was terminated from service by an oral order in the year 1995 and his writ petition came to be allowed way-back in the year 1996 and further observation was made with regard to regularization of his services.
(ii) The fact of working hours of the respondent-employee from 9:00 A.M. to 4:00 P.M. has been certified by the Officer of the State under whom he was working since 1998.
(iii) The appellants-State have permitted the respondent-
employee to work upto the age of superannuation and they have relieved him like ordinary Government employee.
(iv) The respondent-employee has never been communicated with regard to his unsatisfactory working since his induction in service till superannuation.
(v) The plea of sanctioned post not being available but continuing the employee for almost 40 years and thereafter denying the minimum pay is totally against minimum expectation of an employee and the same virtually amounts to exploitation & taking 'Begar', which is prohibited in the Indian Constitution.
29. This Court, considering the facts in the present case, finds that the learned Single Judge has rightly come to the conclusion (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 04:41:07 PM) [2023/RJJP/004944] (15 of 20) [SAW-869/2018] that the experience certificate issued in favour of the respondent- employee was required to be considered for judging his actual working hours.
30. The submission of learned counsel for the State that the appointment order of the respondent-employee itself had shown him as a part time employee and such appointment order since was having a sanction of Higher Authority i.e. District Education Officer and also had a dispatch number, as such the very first order of appointment alone was to be considered for the purpose of judging the nature of appointment of the respondent-employee. This Court finds that the appointment order of the respondent- employee, though was issued by Principal of the School, however, the proper sanction was issued by the District Education Officer to engage two persons on a part time basis, however, the entire work was taken by the appellants-State from the respondent-employee and as such it cannot be inferred & presumed that the respondent-employee was employed only for a minimum period or for a limited job.
31. This Court further finds that the appellants-State themselves have treated the respondent-employee as their employee and while relieving him from his job, they issued an order of retiring the respondent-employee on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.01.2018 after working hours and as such this document cannot be ignored by the Court for considering the nature of employment, which was done by the respondent-employee.
32. The submission of learned counsel for the appellants-State that the Apex Court in the case of State of Bihar & Ors. Vs. (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 04:41:07 PM) [2023/RJJP/004944] (16 of 20) [SAW-869/2018] Bihar Secondary Teachers Struggle Committee, Munger & Ors. (supra) has deprecated the practice of grant of "equal pay for equal work" to the employees, who were not recruited through proper method and as such the distinction has been made by the Apex Court on the ground of process of recruitment.
33. We have carefully gone through the judgment of the Apex Court and finds that the issue before the Apex Court was in respect of appointment of the teachers at Panchayat Level - Municipal Level viz-a-viz the Government Teachers appointed by the State Government in the case of State of Bihar & Ors. Vs. Bihar Secondary Teachers Struggle Committee, Munger & Ors. (supra), as such the Apex Court found that principle of "equal pay for equal work" will not be applicable in the case, where pay structure is evolved considering factors like method of recruitment and employer's capacity to pay.
34. This Court, with utmost respect to the aforesaid observation and law laid down by the Apex Court, finds that the said judgment has no application in the present case.
35. The Reliance is placed by learned counsel for the appellants on the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Union of India & Ors. Vs. Ilmo Devi & Anr. (supra), this Court finds that the Apex Court though has set aside the order of Punjab & Haryana High Court, whereby scheme was directed to be formulated for regularization and absorption of employees and to take a decision to sanction the post and the Apex Court in the same judgment upheld the issue decided by the High Court and as such those employees who had worked for 20 years or more, they (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 04:41:07 PM) [2023/RJJP/004944] (17 of 20) [SAW-869/2018] were all held entitled for minimum pay in a pay scale of Class-IV employees.
36. We take a cue and follow the directions, which have been given by the Apex Court and as such the said case is of little assistance to the learned Additional Advocate General Mr.C.L.Saini.
37. The submission of learned counsel for the State that the Division Bench of this Court in the case of The State of Rajasthan & Anr. Vs. Anil Kumar & Anr. (supra) has considered the similar issue and denied the benefit of minimum pay in the pay scale of Class-IV employees and has directed the employees to go to the Labour Court for his adjudication.
38. We have gone through the said judgment passed by the co- ordinate Bench of this Court and we are in complete agreement with the observations, which have been made by the Co-ordinate Bench.
39. This Court finds that the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court itself has recorded a finding and has reiterated the principle of law that if an employee has worked for equal hours as any other Class-IV employee in the establishment and that too not intermittently for few days in a week but on every working day, certainly, such employee may raise a claim of similar wages, which are being paid to other Class-IV employees, working on a regular basis.
40. The operative portion of the order passed by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of The State of Rajasthan & Anr. Vs. Anil Kumar & Anr. (supra), is quoted hereunder:- (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 04:41:07 PM)
[2023/RJJP/004944] (18 of 20) [SAW-869/2018] "If it can be demonstrated by Respondent No. 1 with appropriate order and documentary evidence that now, he is no longer a part time employee but an employee working for the equal hours as any other Class IV Employee in the establishment and that too, not intermittently for few days in a week but one very working day, certainly, he may raise a claim of similar wages which are being paid to other Class IV Employees, who are working on a regular basis. In any case, minimum wages which are payable under the law, are required to be paid to Respondent No. 1, if the wages, which are being paid to Respondent No. 1 are lesser than the minimum wages prescribed under the latest notification issued under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948.
In view of the above consideration, though order dated 21.10.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge is set aside, writ petition filed by Respondent No. 1 is disposed off with following directions:
(a) The appellants shall ensure payment of minimum wages to Respondent No. 1 as and when wages have been revised from time to time.
(b) The present wages of Respondent No.1 shall not be less than the minimum wages, which are in force as per latest notification issued under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948.
(c) Respondent No.1 was being paid minimum of the pay of pay scale admissible to Class IV Employees till date and considering that Respondent No. 1 is a Safaikarmi, the appellants shall not make any recovery from him, nor the amount, which has already been paid to him under the interim directions, shall be adjusted against the future wages of Respondent No.1.
(d) Respondent No.1 would be at liberty to approach the Labour Court to seek adjudication that he is no longer a part time employee but working for similar hours as regular Class IV Employees and entitled to at least minimum pay of the pay scale applicable to Class IV Employees.
Appeal is, accordingly, disposed off."
(Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 04:41:07 PM) [2023/RJJP/004944] (19 of 20) [SAW-869/2018]
41. This Court, however, finds that the Division Bench while deciding the appeal has granted liberty to the respondent- employee therein to seek adjudication before the Labour Court for entitlement of minimum pay in the pay scale of Class-IV employee.
42. We find that in the present case the respondent-employee had been working for the appellants-State since 1978 and his services were terminated in the year 1995 and his writ petition was also allowed by this Court in the year 1996 & further directed to consider for regularization, as per seniority.
43. This Court further finds that the respondent-employee has already attained the age of superannuation on 31.01.2018, as such asking the respondent-employee to go to the Labour Court for claiming the minimum pay in the pay scale of Class-IV employee, will be nothing but travesity of justice.
44. The facts of this case necessarily makes it clear that the State has used its might power against a low paid employee and even if after rendering service for 40 years working from 9:00 A.M to 4:00 P.M. in a school, the temple of learning, if such employees are being treated the way, the State has treated the respondent- employee, it will not be in the interest of justice that now another round of litigation may be initiated for the purpose of getting minimum pay in the pay scale of Class-IV employees after retirement.
45. This Court, accordingly finds that the learned Single Judge has not committed any error in passing the order, as such the appeal is dismissed.
(Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 04:41:07 PM)
[2023/RJJP/004944] (20 of 20) [SAW-869/2018]
46. We expect that the State will comply with the order passed by the learned Single Judge expeditiously.
(ASHUTOSH KUMAR), J (ASHOK KUMAR GAUR), J
Monika/16
(Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 04:41:07 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)