Parwati Painkra v. Union Of India
NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPS No. 3694 of 2018
1. Parwati Painkra W/o W/o Single Painkra, Aged About 38 Years R/o Village Chalgali, P. S. Lundra, P. O. Udari, District- Surguja, Chhattisgarh. At Present Working In Govt. Primary School, Chalgali, Block. Lundra, District- Surguja, Chhattisgarh., District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh
2. Udho Pawle W/o W/o Jagbandhan, Aged About 48 Years R/o Village Kargidih, P. S. And P. O. Lundra, District- Surguja, Chhattisgarh. At Present Working In Govt. Primary School, Kargidih, Block. Lundra, District- Surguja, Chhattisgarh., District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioners
Versus
1. Union Of India Through The Secretary, Ministry Of Human Resources Development, Educataion Department, Mid Day Meal Scheme, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi., District : New Delhi, Delhi
2. State Of Chhattisgarh, Through The Secretary, Education Departgment, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
3. Directorate, School Education Department, Thourgh The Director, School Education, Shiksha Parisar, Pension Bada, Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
4. Collector, Surguja, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh., District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh
5. District Educatiuon Officer, Ambikapur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh., District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh
6. Block Education Officer, Block Lundra, District- Surguja, Chhattisgarh., District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Petitioner :
Mr. Vikram Dixit, Advocate.
For State :
Mr. Majid Ali, Dy. GA For UOI :
Mr. S. K. Dewangan, Advocate.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hon'ble Shri Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Order on Board 16/05/2018 Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are working on the post of Cook in the schools under Block Lundra, District Surguja 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, the petitioners are entitled for Rs. 255/- per day as they are skilled labour. He would rely upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of State of Punjab & Ors. v. 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, casual, 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/- (Manindra Mohan Shrivastava) Judge Rohit