Sanjay Sitaram Jadhav v. The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 3048 OF 2023 SANJAY SITARAM JADHAV

VERSUS

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, THROUGH ITS SECRETARY AND OTHERS . . .

Advocate for Petitioner : Mr. Vijay A. Dhakne AGP for Respondents - State : Mr. S. K. Tambe . . .

CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE AND SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, JJ.

DATED : 20th MARCH, 2023 PER COURT :

1.

This Petition is filed by an individual who claims to be working as a Watchman (Paharekari) in a private aided tribal ashram school, namely Jai Samakadevi Primary & Secondary Tribal Ashram School, Khanapur, Tq. Degloor, District Nanded. The Petitioner has put forth prayer clauses 'A' and 'B' as under :- "A] To direct the respondents to grant the regular pay scale to the petitioner at par with the Watchmen/Security Guards/ Multi Tasking Staff working in the Government Tribal Ashram schools under the Tribal Development Department since their initial appointments, by issuing a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction as the case may be. B] To direct the respondents to extend the benefit of regular 1/6

pay scale to the petitioner at par with the Watchmen/Security Guards/ Multi Tasking Staff working in the Government Tribal Ashram schools under the Tribal Development Department since appointments in the light of the judgment dated 20.09.2022 passed by this Hon'ble Court in Writ Petition No. 4300/2021, by issuing a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction as the case may be." 2.

The Petitioner relied upon the judgment delivered by this Court, dated 20.9.2022, in Writ Petition No. 4300 of 2021, filed by the Union and 58 workmen. This Court concluded in the light of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab and others vs. Jagjit Singh and others, 2017 (1) SCC 148, as under:- "25. In Punjab State Electricity Board (supra) the Apex Court has re-stated the settled principle that equation of pay scales must be left to Government and on decision of experts and that the Court should not interfere with it. We are in respectful agreement with the said proposition. However, the issue involved in the present case is not about equation of pay scales of two posts.

The issue is about the extension of pay scales of temporary employees who are being paid honorarium in the light of the law laid down in Jagjit Singh (supra). Therefore, the decision is clearly distinguishable. P.S. Gopinathan (supra) is relied upon in support of the contention that having accepted appointments on payments of honorarium, the petitioners are estopped from claiming the pay scales.

Singh (supra) has specifically dealt with this aspect and has held that "In the light, who is compelled to work on lesser wage does not do so voluntarily. He does so, to provide food and shelter to his family, at the cost of his self respect and dignity, at the cost of his self worth, and at the cost of his integrity. For he knows, that his dependents would suffer immensely, if he does not accept the lesser wage. Any act, of paying less wages, as compared to others similarly situate, constitutes an act of exploitative enslavement, emerging out of a domineering position. Undoubtedly, the action is oppressive, suppressive and coercive, as it compels involuntary subjugation."

Thus, the principle of estoppel cannot be invoked while deciding the issue of grant of pay scales to the temporary employees. E.

CONCLUSION 26.

Considering the sound exposition of law on principle of equal pay for equal work to temporary employees in Jagjit Singh (supra), we have no hesitation in holding that the petitioners are required to be granted minimum pay in the payscale admissible for the post of Watchmen/Security Guards/Multi-Tasking Staff engaged in the Government Ashram Schools. The monitory benefits arising out of extension of payscale are however required to be restricted to three years prior to the date of filing of the Petition i.e. w.e.f. 02-02-2018 or from the date of appointment, in the event of appointment being made after 02-02-2018.

3/6

F.

ORDER

27.

Consequently, we proceed to pass the following order: i) We direct the respondents to pay to the petitioners wages at the minimum of payscale admissible for the post of Watchmen/Security Guards/Multi- Tasking Staff engaged in the Government Ashram Schools.

(ii) Monitory benefits arising out of extension of such pay scale is however restricted to three years prior to the filing of the present petition i.e. w.e.f. 02.02.2018 or from the date of engagement of the respective petitioners, whichever is later.

(iii) Writ Petition is allowed in above terms. (iv) There shall be no orders as to costs."

3.

The learned A.G.P. submits that merely because this court has delivered a judgment in another matter, and only because there seems similarity as regards the facts of the petitioner's case and the case which is decided, a blanket order cannot be passed by this court. The Petitioner has to establish that he was working as watchman in the Ashram School, operated by the private management, which is covered under the Tribal Development department. Whether this Petitioner really was working as Watchmen or the Paharekari or whether he was working in any other 4/6

capacity, will have to be scrutinized and only after crystallizing the rights of the Petitioner, reliefs could be granted in terms of the Government Resolution dated 13.12.2019.

4.

We do find that the submissions of the learned A.G.P. are well placed. Ideally, such matters are to be filed either in the Industrial court or an Industrial dispute has to be raised so as to lead oral and documentary evidence and establish the claims as regards designation/ nomenclature/nature of duties/duration of employment/pay scales paid to the regular employees and the shortfall in the pay scale. Once this exercise is completed, the right of the Petitioner can be crystallized under Item 9 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 or by raising an Industrial Dispute under Section 2(k) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, in the Reference proceedings before the Industrial Tribunal.

5.

As such, this petition is disposed off in the light of the above and the judgment of this Court, dated 20.09.2022, delivered in Writ Petition No. 4300 of 2021, with the following directions:- a) The concerned department under which the Ashram Schools in the Tribal area are functioning, shall scrutinize 5/6

the case of the Petitioner and also of similarly situated other employees, who may not have approached this court, for the purposes of identifying their designation/ nomenclature/nature of duties/duration of employment/ pay scales etc. paid to the regular employees and the shortfall in the pay scale. This exercise of verification shall be completed within four weeks.

b) After completion of the verification exercise, Respondent Authorities shall proceed to quantify the arrears of his service benefits and thereafter make the payment to the Petitioner and all equally placed employees who have not approached the Court, within 90 days after completion of the verification exercise.

c) Akin to the judgment dated 20.9.2022 (supra), the arrears would be restricted either for a period of last three years preceding the filing of the Writ Petition or from the date of engagement of a particular candidate, whichever is less. d) The aggrieved Petitioner or similarly situated employees, would be at liberty to seek redressal of his/their grievance, by taking recourse to the remedy, as is statutorily provided.

(SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J.) (RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.) Tandale/- 6/6