Allahabad High Court
Ram Nath And 4 Others vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Agri. … on 11 April, 2025
Author: Rajesh Singh Chauhan
Bench: Rajesh Singh Chauhan
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH ?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:20870 Court No. - 3 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 3950 of 2025 Petitioner :- Ram Nath And 4 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Agri. Edu. Deptt. Lko And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Neelesh Kumar Yadav,Shobh Nath Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Prashant Kumar Singh Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.
1. Heard Sri Neelesh Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Sabhajeet Singh, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no.1, and Sri Satyansh Ojha, who has filed Vakalatnama on behalf of respondents no.2 to 4.
2. With the consent of learned counsels for the parties, the writ petition is being decided finally.
3. At the very outset, attention has been drawn towards the judgement and order dated 03.04.2025 passed by Division Bench of this Court in Special Appeal Defective No.129 of 2025 (Vice Chancellor, Narendra Dev University Of Agriculture And Technology Ayodhya And Another Vs. Ram Kishor Yadav And 2 others), whereby this Court rejected the intra-Court Appeal filed against the judgement and order dated 21.01.2025. The order reads as under :
“(I.A. No. 1 of 2025 – Application for Condonation of Delay)
The intra-court appeal is delayed by so many days.
In absence of any objection by the respondents and cause shown being sufficient in the affidavit filed in support of the application for condonation of delay, the delay deserves to be condoned.
Accordingly, the delay in the intra-court appeal is hereby condoned.
(Order on Special Appeal)
Heard learned counsel for the appellant and Shri Deep Narayan Tripathi, learned counsel for the respondents.
The instant intra-Court Appeal filed under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Allahabad High Court Rules is directed against the order dated 21.01.2025 passed by a Single Judge Bench of this Court in Writ A No. 692 of 2025.
Admittedly the respondents are getting benefit of minimum of pay scale on the basis of the recommendations of 6th pay commission already made applicable in the University. In the meantime, the recommendation of 7th pay commission have also been made applicable to the regular employees of the University vide order dated 19.02.2018, as contained in Annexure No. 2 to the writ petition.
On perusal of the judgment impugned herein, it is gathered that the Writ Court has dully considered all the relevant aspects of the matter. It is evident from the impugned judgment that the Division Bench judgment rendered in the case of Chandra Shekhar Azad Agricultural and Technological University and 2 others vs. Rajendra Prasad Pandey and 20 others, Special Appeal No.435 of 2018, was found to be squarely applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case. In para 9 of the impugned judgment, there appears to be an admission on behalf of the appellant regarding the factual position being similar. In this view of the matter, the argument put forth by the appellant?s counsel to the effect that the benefit of the recommendation of 7th Pay Commission as is available to the regular employees cannot be made applicable to the daily wage employees is unfair and unjust.
In our humble consideration, the argument put forth is unsustainable. The daily wage employees who have already served for more than twenty years in the institution cannot be deprived of the minimum of pay scale particularly when the said benefit was granted to them while implementing recommendation of sixth pay commission. The judgment rendered by the learned Single Judge, in our humble consideration does not suffer from any illegality calling for interference.
The intra court appeal filed against the judgment and order dated 21.01.2025 is accordingly rejected.”
4. By means of this petition, the petitioners have prayed following main reliefs:-
“i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the opposite parties to pay minimum of regular pay scale of Rs.18000/- per month as per the recommendation of 7th Pay Commission w.e.f. 01.01.2016.
ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the opposite parties to pay arrears of minimum of regular pay scale of Rs.18000/- per month as per the recommendation of 7th Pay Commission w.e.f. 01.01.2016 to the petitioner with interest.
iii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner as contained in Annexure No.1 to the writ petition, in accordance with law.”
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners has drawn attention of this Court towards Annexure No.11 of the writ petition, which is an order dated 21.01.2025 passed by this Court in Writ-A No.692 of 2025, Ram Kishor Yadav And Another Vs. State of U.P. through its Principal Secretary Agriculture Education and Research Lko. and 2 Others, which reads as under:-
“1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no.1, and Sri Prashant Kumar Singh, learned counsel for respondents no.2 and 3.
2. With the consent of learned counsels for the parties, the writ petition is being decided finally.
3. The short controversy involved in the matter is that although the petitioners have been granted minimum of the pay scale as per sixth pay commission in pursuance to the judgment and order dated 15.05.2019 passed in a bunch of petitions leading being Writ Petition No.1814 of 2017 (SS) in re: Hanuman Prasad Pandey and 12 others vs. State of U.P. and others, a copy of which is part of Annexure-5 to the petition, yet they have not been granted the minimum of the pay scale as per seventh pay commission.
4. The contention is that the aforesaid controversy has already been examined by a Division Bench of this Court in a bunch of special appeals leading being Special Appeal No.435 of 2018 in re: Chandra Shekhar Azad Agricultural and Technological University and 2 others vs. Rajendra Prasad Pandey and 20 others, decided on 12.07.2018, a copy of which is Annexure-11 to the petition, yet the respondent University has not extended the benefit of the seventh pay commission pertaining to grant of minimum of the pay scale and hence the petition.
5. Responding to that Sri Prashant Kumar Singh, learned counsel for respondents no.2 and 3, points out that the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Chandra Shekhar Azad Agricultural and Technological University (supra) pertains to some other University and not the University in which the petitioners are working. However, he does not dispute that in the aforesaid judgment the Division Bench has in fact directed for grant of minimum of the pay scale to the Daily Wagers at par with the regular employees who are entitled for the pay scales given under the recommendations of the seventh pay commission.
6. Having heard learned counsels for the contesting parties and having perused the record, it emerges that in the earlier round of litigation this Court vide judgment and order dated 15.05.2019 had directed the respondents to pay the petitioners the minimum of the pay scale till they are regularized in service. In pursuance thereof, the petitioners have been given the minimum of the pay scale as per sixth pay commission. However, they are not being given the minimum of the pay scale as per seventh pay commission. This aspect of the matter has been examined by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Chandra Shekhar Azad Agricultural and Technological University (supra) wherein the Division Bench has held that the minimum pay, as a matter of fact, is nothing but quantification of labour sold by an employee to the employer and that this should also be in consonance with the principle of equal pay for equal work enshrined under Article 39(d) read with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
7. Incidentally, the SLP filed against the Division Bench judgment in the case of Chandra Shekhar Azad Agricultural and Technological University (supra) has been dismissed vide judgment and order dated 21.11.2024, a copy of which is Annexure-12 to the petition.
8. Even otherwise, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sabha Shanker Dube vs. Divisional Forest Officer and others – [2019 (160) FLR 90] after considering its earlier judgment in the case of State of Punjab and others vs. Jagjit Singh and others – (2017) 1 SCC 148 has held that temporary employees are entitled to draw wages at the minimum of the pay scales which are applicable to the regular employees holding the same post.
9. Thus, keeping in view the law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Sabha Shanker Dube (supra) and Jagjit Singh (supra) as well as the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Chandra Shekhar Azad Agricultural and Technological University (supra) and the fact that the petitioners have admittedly been given the minimum of the regular pay scale as per the sixth pay commission consequently there is no occasion for the respondents to not give minimum of the pay scale as per seventh pay commission.
10. Keeping in view the aforesaid discussion, the writ petition is allowed. A writ of mandamus is issued to the respondents to grant the minimum of the pay scale to the petitioners as per seventh pay commission as is being drawn by the regular employees working on the said post. The payment would be made till such time the petitioners are regularized in service in accordance with rules.
11. Let the respondents comply with the order within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
12. The respondents would also consider for payment of arrears on the basis of sixth and seventh pay commission in accordance with rules within the aforesaid period provided there is no legal impediment.”
6. Sri Prashant Kumar Singh has stated that the aforesaid order covers the controversy in hand and the petitioners would be getting the benefit of aforesaid order, if they are still discharging their duties on the post in question.
7. Sri Neelesh Kumar Yadav has stated that the present petitioners are still discharging their duties.
8. Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and also the judgment of this Court in re; Ram Kishor Yadav (supra), this writ petition is allowed. A writ of mandamus is issued to the respondents to grant the minimum of the pay scale to the petitioners as per seventh pay commission as is being drawn by the regular employees working on the said post. The payment would be made till such time the petitioners are regularized in service in accordance with rules.
9. Let the respondents comply with the order within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
10. The respondents would also consider for payment of arrears on the basis of sixth and seventh pay commission in accordance with rules within the aforesaid period provided there is no legal impediment.
Order Date :- 11.4.2025.
Rks.