Smt. Somin Bai v. Union Of India
NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPS No. 6867 of 2016
1. Smt. Somin Bai W/o Shri Netram, Aged About 43 Years R/o Village Bhediya Navagaon, Post Belmand, District Balod, (Chhattisgarh)
2. Ku. Alita, D/o Shri Shivcharan, Aged About 41 Years R/o Village Bhediya Navagaon, Post Belmand, District Balod, (Chhattisgarh)
3. Smt. Raini Bai, W/o Leeladhar, Aged About 29 Years R/o Village Bhediya Navagaon, Post Belmand, District Balod, (Chhattisgarh)
4. Smt. Tuleshwari Sinha, W/o Rajendra Kumar, Aged About 36 Years R/o Village Bhediya Navagaon, Post Belmand, District Balod, (Chhattisgarh)
5. Smt. Bhan Bai Taram, W/o Rakesh Kumar, Aged About 32 Years R/o Village Bhediya Navagaon, Post Belmand, District Balod, (Chhattisgarh)
6. Smt. Sita Bai, W/o Shri Surajlal, Aged About 46 Years R/o Village Bhediya Navagaon, Post Belmand, District Balod, (Chhattisgarh) ---- Petitioners
Versus
1. Union Of India Through: Secretary, Ministry Of Human Resources Development, Department Of School Education And Literacy, Mid Day Meal Division, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi
2. State Of Chhattisgarh, Through : Secretary, Department Of Education, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh)
3. Directorate, School Education, Through : The Director, School Education, Shiksha Parisar, Pension Bada, Raipur, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh)
4. Block Education Officer, Balod, District Balod (Chhattisgarh).
5. Government Middle School, Bhediya Navagaon, Through: The Head Master, Government Middle School, Bhediya Navagaon, Block Balod, District Balod, (Chhattisgarh)
6. Government Primary School, Bhediya Navagaon, Through: The Head Master, Government Primary School, Bhediya Navagaon, Block Balod, District Balod, (Chhattisgarh)
7. State Of Chhattisgarh, Through : Secretary, Department Of Finance, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh) ---- Respondents For Petitioners :
Shri Sourabh Sharma, Advocate For Respondent 1 :
Shri Ashwani Shukla, Shri R.K. Gupta and Ms. Purnima Singh, Central Govt.
Counsel For Respondents 2 to 7 :
Shri Dhiraj Wankhede, GA and Shri Ramakant Pandey, PL on advance copy
Hon'ble Shri Justice Chandra Bhushan Bajpai Order On Board 19/12/2016 1.
Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are working on the post of Cook in the Government Middle School, Bhediya and Government Primary School, Bhediya and they are being paid only Rs. 1200/- per month i.e. Rs.40/- per day, whereas, according to the notification Annexure P/2, minimum wages prescribed by the Chhattisgarh Minimum Wage, they are entitled for Rs.255/- per day as they are skilled labours. He would rely upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of State of Punjab & Ors.Vs. Jagjit Singh & Ors., decided on 26th October, 2016 in which the Supreme Court has held that the principle of equal pay for equal work will also applicable to all the temporary employees and has been held as under : "54.
There is no room for any doubt, that the principle of 'equal pay for equal work' has emerged from an interpretation of different provisions of the Constitution. The principle has been expounded through a large number of judgments rendered by this Court, and constitutes law declared by this Court. The same is binding on all the courts in India, under Article 141 of the Constitution of India. The parameters of the principle, have been summarized by us in paragraph 42 hereinabove. The principle of 'equal pay for equal work' has also been extended to temporary employees (differently described as work-charge, daily-wage, causal, ad-hoc, contractual, and the like). The legal position, relating to temporary employees, has been summarized by us, in paragraph 44 hereinabove.
The above legal position which has been repeatedly declared, is being reiterated by us, yet again". 2.
In view of above, respondent No.2 is directed to consider the representation of the petitioners in the light of aforesaid judgment of the Supreme Court within 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order and to pass a reasoned order in accordance with law on its own merit. The petitioners are at liberty to make an additional representation, if any. 3.
With the aforesaid direction, the writ petition stands finally disposed of. Sd/- (Chandra Bhushan Bajpai) Judge sunita