Non Reportable
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL No. 10956 of 2018
(Arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) No. 1045 of 2016)
Sabha Shanker Dube .... Appellant
Versus
Divisional Forest Officer & Ors. ….Respondents
W I T H
CIVIL APPEAL Nos._10957-10963 of 2018
(Arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) Nos. 1252-1258 of
2016)
CIVIL APPEAL No._10964___ of 2018
(Arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) No. 11108 of 2016)
J U D G M E N T
L. NAGESWARA RAO, J.
Leave granted
1. These Appeals are filed against the judgment of the
High Court of Allahabad dated 24th September, 2015 in
Special Appeal No.1198 of 2006 and others by which the
judgment of the learned Single Judge denying relief to the
Appellants was affirmed.
1 | P a g e
2. The Appellants are daily rated workers employed in
Group ‘D’ posts in the Forest Department in the State of
Uttar Pradesh. They filed Writ Petitions before the High
Court of Allahabad seeking regularization of their
services, the minimum of the pay scales available to their
counterparts working on regular posts and treating them
as being in continued service while condoning the breaks
in their service. The Writ Petitions were dismissed by a
learned Single Judge by a judgment dated 28th April,
2004. Regularization of daily wagers was directed to be
considered in accordance with the relevant rules by
condoning the breaks in service if it is less than 03
months. It was held that a direction for regularization
cannot be issued. The learned Single Judge rejected the
claim of the Appellants regarding the minimum of the pay
scales by holding that such a direction cannot be granted
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Special
Appeals filed by the Appellants were dismissed by a
Division Bench of the High Court of Allahabad by a
judgment dated 24th September, 2015 by relying upon its
earlier judgment in Special Appeal No.1530 of 2007.
2 | P a g e
3. Special Appeal No.1530 of 2007 was filed by the
State of Uttar Pradesh against the judgment of the
learned Single Judge dated 17th October, 2005 in Civil
Misc. Writ Petition No.48322 of 2000 and others. The said
Writ Petitions were filed by daily wagers working in Group
‘C’ and Group ‘D’ posts in the Forest Department of the
State of Uttar Pradesh. Regularization of services and
equal pay for equal work were the reliefs that were
sought by the Petitioners in those Writ Petitions. The
learned Single Judge allowed the Writ Petitions by
directing the State Government to re-consider the
Petitioners-therein for regularization of their services,
ignoring artificial breaks and by relaxing the minimum
educational qualifications and the physical endurance
requirements prescribed by the service rules. The
Selection Committee was directed to re-consider
candidature of all the Petitioners-therein for
regularization. Such of those persons who were found
eligible for regularization were directed to be regularized
in the vacancies that may arise in the future in their
respective divisions. There was a further direction that
3 | P a g e
the Petitioners-therein shall be continued on daily wages
till their regularization and be paid a minimum of the pay
scales.
4. In the Appeal filed by the State of Uttar Pradesh, a
Division Bench of the High Court set aside the directions
issued in the Writ Petitions relating to the relaxation of
minimum educational qualifications and physical
endurance requirements as also the direction pertaining
to the minimum of the pay scales to be paid to the daily
wagers. The directions issued by the learned Single Judge
to relax the conditions of the requisite minimum
qualifications and physical endurance requirements were
found to be unjustified by the Division Bench. Placing
reliance on a judgment of this Court in State of
Haryana v. Tilak Raj
1
and State of Punjab v. Surjit
Singh
2
, the Division Bench of the High Court held that
the daily wagers are not entitled to the minimum of the
pay scales.
5. We have heard Mr. B.H. Marlapalle and Mr. S.R.
Singh, learned Senior Counsels for the Appellants and Ms.
Aishwarya Bhati, learned Addl. Advocate General and Ms.
1 (2003) 6 SCC 23
2 (2009) 9 SCC 514
4 | P a g e
Rachna Gupta, learned Advocate on-Record appearing for
the Respondents. It was made clear by Mr. Marlapalle,
learned Senior Advocate that the only point that requires
consideration pertains to the entitlement of the
Appellants to the minimum of the pay scales applicable to
the regular employees in the Forest Department. It was
submitted on behalf of the Appellants that the judgment
of this Court in Civil Appeal No.3634 of 1998 in State of
U.P. & Ors. v. Putti Lal
3
still holds the field and the
Division Bench ought to have granted the relief sought by
following the said judgment. The Appellants relied upon a
judgment of this Court in State of Punjab & Ors. v.
Jagjit Singh & Ors.
4
to submit that they are entitled to
the minimum of the pay scales and the judgment of the
Division Bench is liable to be set aside. The Appellants
also draw support from the Civil Appeals5
that were heard
by this Court against the orders passed in Contempt
Applications filed for disobedience of the orders of
payment of the minimum of the pay scales to the daily
wage workers in the Forest Department. This Court took
3 (2006) 9 SCC 337
4 (2017) 1 SCC 148
5 Civil Appeal Nos. 884-885 of 2016 and 879-883 of 2016
5 | P a g e
notice of an affidavit filed on behalf of the Principal Chief
Conservator of Forests, State of Uttar Pradesh in which it
was stated that the instructions were given to all the
officers concerned to implement the directions issued by
the High Court regarding payment of the minimum of pay
scales to the daily wagers. A direction was given by this
Court to the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests and
the Principal Secretary to the Department of Forests,
State of Uttar Pradesh to file separate affidavits in the
High Court regarding the implementation of the
directions. Mr. S.R. Singh, learned Senior Advocate
appearing for some of the Appellants informed us that all
the daily wagers were paid the minimum of the pay
scales from 29th January, 2016 to 31st March, 2018 at the
rate of Rs.18,000/- per month. After 31st March, 2018, the
pay was revised to 7,000/- per month. He submitted that
according to the recommendations of the 7th Pay
Commission, the minimum of the pay scale to which the
Appellants are entitled to is Rs.18,000/-.
6. Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, learned Addl. Advocate General
appearing for the State of Uttar Pradesh contended that
6 | P a g e
the Appellants are working in projects after being
employed as and when the necessity arises. There is no
continuity of service and the employment of the
Appellants is made periodically after long breaks. She
submitted that the Appellants are not eligible for
regularization in accordance with the rules and they are
not working on sanctioned posts. She also submitted that
any relief granted in favour of the Appellants will result in
a heavy burden on the State exchequer.
7. It is necessary for us to refer to the judgment of the
Division Bench of the High Court of Allahabad in Special
Appeal No.1530 of 2007 as all the impugned Special
Appeals were dismissed by following the said judgment.
The directions issued by the learned Single Judge to reconsider
the Writ Petitioners for regularization of their
services by ignoring the minimum educational
qualifications and the physical endurance requirements
as well as continuance of the Writ Petitioners on a daily
wage basis with the minimum of the pay scales were set
aside by the Division Bench.
7 | P a g e
8. The daily wagers relied upon a judgment of this
Court in Putti Lal (supra) and submitted that the same
relief may be extended to them. It is relevant to note that
the judgment in Putti Lal (supra) relates to a dispute
similar to that involved in this case. Daily rated wage
earners in the Forest Department in the State of Uttar
Pradesh approached the High Court for regularization of
their services. The Division Bench of the High Court of
Allahabad directed the State Government to constitute
the Committee as directed in order to frame the scheme
for regularization. The judgment of the High Court that
the daily rated wage workers shall be paid at the
minimum of the pay scales was affirmed by this Court on
the principle of equal pay for equal work. The Division
Bench of the High Court while deciding Special Appeal
No.1530 of 2007 referred to the judgment in Putti Lal
(supra) but placed reliance on a later judgment of this
Court Tilak Raj (supra). The Division Bench of the High
Court also cited the case of Surjit Singh (supra) to hold
that the daily wagers cannot seek the benefit of the
judgment of Putti Lal (supra) case in view of the
8 | P a g e
subsequent decisions of this Court wherein, according to
the High Court, it was held that daily wage employees
were not entitled to the minimum of the pay scales.
9. On a comprehensive consideration of the entire law
on the subject of parity of pay scales on the principle of
equal pay for equal work, this Court in Jagjit Singh
(supra) held as follows:
“ 58. In our considered view, it is fallacious to
determine artificial parameters to deny fruits of
labour. An employee engaged for the same work
cannot be paid less than another who performs the
same duties and responsibilities. Certainly not, in a
welfare State. Such an action besides being
demeaning, strikes at the very foundation of human
dignity. Anyone, who is compelled to work at a lesser
wage does not do so voluntarily. He does so to provide
food and shelter to his family, at the cost of his selfrespect
and dignity, at the cost of his self-worth, and
at the cost of his integrity. For he knows that his
dependants 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.”
9 | P a g e
10. The issue that was considered by this Court in Jagjit
Singh (supra) is whether temporary employees (daily
wage employees, ad hoc appointees, employees
appointed on casual basis, contractual employees and
likewise) are entitled to the minimum of the regular pay
scales on account of their performing the same duties
which are discharged by those engaged on regular basis
against the sanctioned posts. After considering several
judgments including the judgments of this Court in Tilak
Raj (supra) and Surjit Singh (supra), this Court 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.
11. In view of the judgment in Jagjit Singh (supra), we
are unable to uphold the view of the High Court that the
Appellants-herein are not entitled to be paid the
minimum of the pay sales. We are not called upon to
adjudicate on the rights of the Appellants relating to the
regularization of their services. We are concerned only
with the principle laid down by this Court initially in Putti
Lal (supra) relating to persons who are similarly situated
10 | P a g e
to the Appellants and later affirmed in Jagjit Singh
(supra) that temporary employees are entitled to
minimum of the pay scales as long as they continue in
service.
12. We express no opinion on the contention of the
State Government that the Appellants are not entitled to
the reliefs as they are not working on Group ‘D’ posts and
that some of them worked for short periods in projects.
13. For the aforementioned reasons, we allow these
Appeals and set aside the judgments of the High Court
holding that the Appellants are entitled to be paid the
minimum of the pay scales applicable to regular
employees working on the same posts. The State of Uttar
Pradesh is directed to make payment of the minimum of
pay scales to the Appellants with effect from 1st
December, 2018.
...................................J.
[S.A. BOBDE]
..................................J.
[L. NAGESWARA RAO]
New Delhi,
November 14, 2018
11 | P a g e
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL No. 10956 of 2018
(Arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) No. 1045 of 2016)
Sabha Shanker Dube .... Appellant
Versus
Divisional Forest Officer & Ors. ….Respondents
W I T H
CIVIL APPEAL Nos._10957-10963 of 2018
(Arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) Nos. 1252-1258 of
2016)
CIVIL APPEAL No._10964___ of 2018
(Arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) No. 11108 of 2016)
J U D G M E N T
L. NAGESWARA RAO, J.
Leave granted
1. These Appeals are filed against the judgment of the
High Court of Allahabad dated 24th September, 2015 in
Special Appeal No.1198 of 2006 and others by which the
judgment of the learned Single Judge denying relief to the
Appellants was affirmed.
1 | P a g e
2. The Appellants are daily rated workers employed in
Group ‘D’ posts in the Forest Department in the State of
Uttar Pradesh. They filed Writ Petitions before the High
Court of Allahabad seeking regularization of their
services, the minimum of the pay scales available to their
counterparts working on regular posts and treating them
as being in continued service while condoning the breaks
in their service. The Writ Petitions were dismissed by a
learned Single Judge by a judgment dated 28th April,
2004. Regularization of daily wagers was directed to be
considered in accordance with the relevant rules by
condoning the breaks in service if it is less than 03
months. It was held that a direction for regularization
cannot be issued. The learned Single Judge rejected the
claim of the Appellants regarding the minimum of the pay
scales by holding that such a direction cannot be granted
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Special
Appeals filed by the Appellants were dismissed by a
Division Bench of the High Court of Allahabad by a
judgment dated 24th September, 2015 by relying upon its
earlier judgment in Special Appeal No.1530 of 2007.
2 | P a g e
3. Special Appeal No.1530 of 2007 was filed by the
State of Uttar Pradesh against the judgment of the
learned Single Judge dated 17th October, 2005 in Civil
Misc. Writ Petition No.48322 of 2000 and others. The said
Writ Petitions were filed by daily wagers working in Group
‘C’ and Group ‘D’ posts in the Forest Department of the
State of Uttar Pradesh. Regularization of services and
equal pay for equal work were the reliefs that were
sought by the Petitioners in those Writ Petitions. The
learned Single Judge allowed the Writ Petitions by
directing the State Government to re-consider the
Petitioners-therein for regularization of their services,
ignoring artificial breaks and by relaxing the minimum
educational qualifications and the physical endurance
requirements prescribed by the service rules. The
Selection Committee was directed to re-consider
candidature of all the Petitioners-therein for
regularization. Such of those persons who were found
eligible for regularization were directed to be regularized
in the vacancies that may arise in the future in their
respective divisions. There was a further direction that
3 | P a g e
the Petitioners-therein shall be continued on daily wages
till their regularization and be paid a minimum of the pay
scales.
4. In the Appeal filed by the State of Uttar Pradesh, a
Division Bench of the High Court set aside the directions
issued in the Writ Petitions relating to the relaxation of
minimum educational qualifications and physical
endurance requirements as also the direction pertaining
to the minimum of the pay scales to be paid to the daily
wagers. The directions issued by the learned Single Judge
to relax the conditions of the requisite minimum
qualifications and physical endurance requirements were
found to be unjustified by the Division Bench. Placing
reliance on a judgment of this Court in State of
Haryana v. Tilak Raj
1
and State of Punjab v. Surjit
Singh
2
, the Division Bench of the High Court held that
the daily wagers are not entitled to the minimum of the
pay scales.
5. We have heard Mr. B.H. Marlapalle and Mr. S.R.
Singh, learned Senior Counsels for the Appellants and Ms.
Aishwarya Bhati, learned Addl. Advocate General and Ms.
1 (2003) 6 SCC 23
2 (2009) 9 SCC 514
4 | P a g e
Rachna Gupta, learned Advocate on-Record appearing for
the Respondents. It was made clear by Mr. Marlapalle,
learned Senior Advocate that the only point that requires
consideration pertains to the entitlement of the
Appellants to the minimum of the pay scales applicable to
the regular employees in the Forest Department. It was
submitted on behalf of the Appellants that the judgment
of this Court in Civil Appeal No.3634 of 1998 in State of
U.P. & Ors. v. Putti Lal
3
still holds the field and the
Division Bench ought to have granted the relief sought by
following the said judgment. The Appellants relied upon a
judgment of this Court in State of Punjab & Ors. v.
Jagjit Singh & Ors.
4
to submit that they are entitled to
the minimum of the pay scales and the judgment of the
Division Bench is liable to be set aside. The Appellants
also draw support from the Civil Appeals5
that were heard
by this Court against the orders passed in Contempt
Applications filed for disobedience of the orders of
payment of the minimum of the pay scales to the daily
wage workers in the Forest Department. This Court took
3 (2006) 9 SCC 337
4 (2017) 1 SCC 148
5 Civil Appeal Nos. 884-885 of 2016 and 879-883 of 2016
5 | P a g e
notice of an affidavit filed on behalf of the Principal Chief
Conservator of Forests, State of Uttar Pradesh in which it
was stated that the instructions were given to all the
officers concerned to implement the directions issued by
the High Court regarding payment of the minimum of pay
scales to the daily wagers. A direction was given by this
Court to the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests and
the Principal Secretary to the Department of Forests,
State of Uttar Pradesh to file separate affidavits in the
High Court regarding the implementation of the
directions. Mr. S.R. Singh, learned Senior Advocate
appearing for some of the Appellants informed us that all
the daily wagers were paid the minimum of the pay
scales from 29th January, 2016 to 31st March, 2018 at the
rate of Rs.18,000/- per month. After 31st March, 2018, the
pay was revised to 7,000/- per month. He submitted that
according to the recommendations of the 7th Pay
Commission, the minimum of the pay scale to which the
Appellants are entitled to is Rs.18,000/-.
6. Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, learned Addl. Advocate General
appearing for the State of Uttar Pradesh contended that
6 | P a g e
the Appellants are working in projects after being
employed as and when the necessity arises. There is no
continuity of service and the employment of the
Appellants is made periodically after long breaks. She
submitted that the Appellants are not eligible for
regularization in accordance with the rules and they are
not working on sanctioned posts. She also submitted that
any relief granted in favour of the Appellants will result in
a heavy burden on the State exchequer.
7. It is necessary for us to refer to the judgment of the
Division Bench of the High Court of Allahabad in Special
Appeal No.1530 of 2007 as all the impugned Special
Appeals were dismissed by following the said judgment.
The directions issued by the learned Single Judge to reconsider
the Writ Petitioners for regularization of their
services by ignoring the minimum educational
qualifications and the physical endurance requirements
as well as continuance of the Writ Petitioners on a daily
wage basis with the minimum of the pay scales were set
aside by the Division Bench.
7 | P a g e
8. The daily wagers relied upon a judgment of this
Court in Putti Lal (supra) and submitted that the same
relief may be extended to them. It is relevant to note that
the judgment in Putti Lal (supra) relates to a dispute
similar to that involved in this case. Daily rated wage
earners in the Forest Department in the State of Uttar
Pradesh approached the High Court for regularization of
their services. The Division Bench of the High Court of
Allahabad directed the State Government to constitute
the Committee as directed in order to frame the scheme
for regularization. The judgment of the High Court that
the daily rated wage workers shall be paid at the
minimum of the pay scales was affirmed by this Court on
the principle of equal pay for equal work. The Division
Bench of the High Court while deciding Special Appeal
No.1530 of 2007 referred to the judgment in Putti Lal
(supra) but placed reliance on a later judgment of this
Court Tilak Raj (supra). The Division Bench of the High
Court also cited the case of Surjit Singh (supra) to hold
that the daily wagers cannot seek the benefit of the
judgment of Putti Lal (supra) case in view of the
8 | P a g e
subsequent decisions of this Court wherein, according to
the High Court, it was held that daily wage employees
were not entitled to the minimum of the pay scales.
9. On a comprehensive consideration of the entire law
on the subject of parity of pay scales on the principle of
equal pay for equal work, this Court in Jagjit Singh
(supra) held as follows:
“ 58. In our considered view, it is fallacious to
determine artificial parameters to deny fruits of
labour. An employee engaged for the same work
cannot be paid less than another who performs the
same duties and responsibilities. Certainly not, in a
welfare State. Such an action besides being
demeaning, strikes at the very foundation of human
dignity. Anyone, who is compelled to work at a lesser
wage does not do so voluntarily. He does so to provide
food and shelter to his family, at the cost of his selfrespect
and dignity, at the cost of his self-worth, and
at the cost of his integrity. For he knows that his
dependants 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.”
9 | P a g e
10. The issue that was considered by this Court in Jagjit
Singh (supra) is whether temporary employees (daily
wage employees, ad hoc appointees, employees
appointed on casual basis, contractual employees and
likewise) are entitled to the minimum of the regular pay
scales on account of their performing the same duties
which are discharged by those engaged on regular basis
against the sanctioned posts. After considering several
judgments including the judgments of this Court in Tilak
Raj (supra) and Surjit Singh (supra), this Court 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.
11. In view of the judgment in Jagjit Singh (supra), we
are unable to uphold the view of the High Court that the
Appellants-herein are not entitled to be paid the
minimum of the pay sales. We are not called upon to
adjudicate on the rights of the Appellants relating to the
regularization of their services. We are concerned only
with the principle laid down by this Court initially in Putti
Lal (supra) relating to persons who are similarly situated
10 | P a g e
to the Appellants and later affirmed in Jagjit Singh
(supra) that temporary employees are entitled to
minimum of the pay scales as long as they continue in
service.
12. We express no opinion on the contention of the
State Government that the Appellants are not entitled to
the reliefs as they are not working on Group ‘D’ posts and
that some of them worked for short periods in projects.
13. For the aforementioned reasons, we allow these
Appeals and set aside the judgments of the High Court
holding that the Appellants are entitled to be paid the
minimum of the pay scales applicable to regular
employees working on the same posts. The State of Uttar
Pradesh is directed to make payment of the minimum of
pay scales to the Appellants with effect from 1st
December, 2018.
...................................J.
[S.A. BOBDE]
..................................J.
[L. NAGESWARA RAO]
New Delhi,
November 14, 2018
11 | P a g e
