Page 1

1

NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NOs. 879-883 OF 2016 [@SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) 28317-28321 OF 2010]

DY.DIRECTOR, SOCIAL FORESTRY DIVN.& ANR      Appellant (s)                                 VERSUS

LAKSHMI CHANDRA                              Respondent(s) WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NOs. 884-85 OF 2016 [ @ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) 27593-27594 OF 2010 ]

WITH SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) 26571-26572 OF 2010 SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) 26664-26665 OF 2010 SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) 27506-27507 OF 2010 SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) 27578-27579 OF 2010

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) 1340 OF 2011 SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) 1342 OF 2011 SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) 1343 OF 2011

J U D G M E N T

KURIAN, J. Civil Appeal Nos. 884-85 of 2016 [@ SLP (C) 27593- 27594 of 2010]  1. Leave granted.  2. The appellants are before this Court, aggrieved  by  the  proceedings  for  contempt  initiated  against  them.  The  disputes  herein  are  in  a  very  narrow

Page 2

2

compass, regarding the payment of minimum of the pay- scale  to  the  daily  wagers  working  in  the  Forest  Department in Group-D posts.   3. In the contempt application, being Civil Misc.  Contempt Petition No. 2465 of 2004, by order dated  01.07.2010,  the  High  Court  passed  the  following  order:-

"It  is  not  the  case  of  the  opposite  

parties  that  the  applicants  are  not  

working  in  the  Forest  Department  at  

different places after the judgments of  

this Court and the Apex Court.  It is  

admitted  that  the  applicants  are  

working  as  daily  wagers.   Thus,  once  

this Court had issued directions to pay  

all the daily rated workers the minium  

of the pay scale but without allowances  

and  other  benefits,  the  applicants  

would be entitled to minimum of the pay  

scale so long they continue to work as  

daily  rated  workers  in  the  Forest  

Department.   The  opposite  parties  by  

not paying the minimum of the pay scale  

to all the daily rated workers working  

in the Forest Department on the cut off  

date  and  thereafter  have  thus  

violated/disobeyed  the  directions  of

Page 3

3

this Court contained in the judgments  

of  the  learned  Single  Judge  and  the  

Division Bench in the case of Putti Lal  

(supra).  In view of discussions made  

above,  the  Court  is  prima  facie  

satisfied  that  there  has  been  wilful  

and  deliberate  disobedience  /non-

compliance on the part of the opposite  

parties of the directions of this Court  

as  contained  in  the  judgments  of  the  

learned Single Judge and the Division  

Bench  of  this  Court  in  the  case  of  

Putti Lal (supra), as modified by the  

Apex Court."     

4. The High Court had, in fact, directed the payment  in terms of an order passed by this Court in Civil  Appeal No. 3634 of 1998 dated 21.02.2002 titled as  State of U.P. & Ors. Vs. Putti Lal reported in (2006)  9 SCC 337, in which this Court had held :-

"In several cases, this Court applying  

the  principle  of  equal  pay  for  equal  

work has held that a daily wager, if he  

is  discharging  the  similar  duties  as  

those in the regular employment of the  

Government, should at least be entitled

Page 4

4

to receive the minimum of the pay scale  

though he might not be entitled to any  

increment or any other allowance that  

is permissible to his counter part in  

the  Government.   In  our  opinion  that  

would be the correct position and we,  

therefore,  direct  that  these  daily-

wagers would be entitled to draw at the  

minimum of the pay scale being received  

by their counter part in the Government  

and would not be entitled to any other  

allowances or increment so long as they  

continue as daily wager.  The question  

of  their  regular  absorption  will  

obviously be dealt with in accordance  

with  the  statutory  rule  already  

referred to."

5. It  is  seen  from  the  records  of  the  contempt  petition  that  the  Principal  Chief  Conservator  of  Forests of the State had filed an affidavit before  the  High  Court  to  the  effect  that  necessary  instructions  had  been  issued  to  all  the  officers  concerned  to  implement  the  directions  referred  to  above with regard to payment of minimum of the pay- scale to the daily wagers.  

Page 5

5

6. We  direct  the  Principal  Secretary  to  the  Department of Forests, U.P. and the Principal Chief  Conservator  of  Forests,  U.P.  to  file  separate  affidavits  before  the  High  Court  on  the  implementation of the orders referred to above.  In  case, the workmen have not been paid the amounts as  per the orders, they shall see that wages are paid in  terms of the orders within a period of one month from  today and the affidavit in that regard shall be filed  before the High Court within two weeks thereafter.   7. In  case,  the  orders  are  not  implemented,  the  Principal Secretary to the Department of Forests and  the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests shall not  be eligible to draw their salaries from the month of  April, 2016, without permission from the High Court.  8. Subject  to  the  above  directions,  these  civil  appeals are disposed of with no orders as to costs.  Pending  interlocutory  applications,  if  any,  are  disposed of.   

Civil Appeal Nos. 879-883 of 2016 [@ Special Leave  Petition (C) Nos. 28317-28321 of 2010] 1. Leave granted.   2. The  dispute  essentially  pertains  to  the  regularisation  of  the  daily  wagers  in  the  Forest  Department  of  the  State  of  U.P.  and  payment  of  minimum  of  the  pay-scale  being  received  by  their

Page 6

6

counterparts  in  the  Government  without  any  other  allowances  or  increment  so  long  as  the  workmen  continued as daily wagers.  In the decision rendered  by this Court in Putti Lal (supra), this Court gave a  quietus to both the disputes by permitting the State  to  take  up  the  case  of  the  daily  wagers  for  regularisation in terms of the rules framed by the  State viz.  "The U.P. Regularisation of Daily Wages  (Appointment on Group D Posts) Rules, 2001".  As far  as  the payment  of minimum  of pay-scale  also, this  Court held that the daily wagers should be paid the  minimum  of  the  pay-scale  being  received  by  their  counterparts  in  the  Government,  without  any  other  allowances or increment, so long as they continued as  daily wagers.   3. The  respondent  approached  the  High  Court  complaining that no meaningful steps have been taken  for regularisation in terms of the rules referred to  above despite the High Court issuing a direction in  Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 43443 of 2004, decided  on 23.10.2008. 4. The learned Single Judge, taking cognizance of  the fact that despite the direction issued by this  Court  and  the  High  Court,  the  State  and  their  machinery had not been putting the house in order,  directed the officers concerned to be present before  the Court to explain the position.  Accordingly, on

Page 7

7

03.12.2009,  the  Principal  Secretary,  Department  of  Forests  and  the  Principal  Chief  Conservator  of  Forests, who were present before the learned Single  Judge, submitted that steps would be taken to draw an  accurate eligibility and seniority list in all the  Divisions in terms of the Rules referred to above for  the  purpose  of  regularisation.   Despite  such  an  undertaking  given  before  the  Court  in  person  and  recorded by the Court, apparantly no meaningful steps  were taken and therefore, the Court proceeded to the  next stage of framing charges.  The matter was taken  in an intra-court appeal, which was also dismissed  and thus, they are before this Court.   5. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants  has  submitted  that  during  the  pendency  of  these  proceedings before the Court and the High Court, in  all the 70 Divisions of the Forest Department, the  eligibility and seniority list has been prepared and  submitted  before  the  High  Court.   Mr.  Prashant  Bhushan, learned counsel appearing for some of the  workmen,  has  submitted  that  the  lists  which  were  submitted, were not prepared in accordance with the  Rules and quite a few bogus names were also inserted  in the list.  We do not think it fit for us to go  into all these aspects.  Now that the lists have been  prepared and presented before the Court, we request  the  High Court  to take  into consideration  all the

Page 8

8

subsequent developments and proceed accordingly so as  to reach a logical conclusion in terms of the orders  passed by this Court and the High Court with regard  to regularisation as well as the payment of minium of  pay-scale to the daily wagers.   6. The needful may be done expeditiously and at any  rate  within three  months from  today.  The parties  will  appear  before  the  High  Court  on  17.02.2016.  Needless to say, the steps proposed in the impugned  order  for  framing  charges  will  be  deferred  and  reconsidered.     7. The Registry is directed to forward a copy of  this Judgment to the Registrar General of the High  Court forthwith for posting of the case.   8. In view of the above, these civil appeals are  disposed  of  with  no  order  as  to  costs.   Pending  interlocutory applications, if any, are disposed of.  

Special  Leave  Petition  (C)  26571-26572  OF  2010,  Special  Leave  Petition  (C)  26664-26665  OF  2010,  Special  Leave  Petition  (C)  27506-27507  OF  2010,  Special  Leave  Petition  (C)  27578-27579  OF  2010,  Special  Leave  Petition  (C)  1340  OF  2011,  Special  Leave  Petition  (C)  1342  OF  2011,  Special  Leave  Petition (C) 1343 OF 2011 1. In view of the Judgment passed in Civil Appeal  Nos. 879-883 of 2016 (@SLP (C) Nos. 28317-28321 of

Page 9

9

2010), no further orders are required to be passed in  these  Special  Leave  Petitions  and  these  are  also  disposed of in terms of the directions issued above. 2. Pending interlocutory applications, if any, are  disposed of.

.......................J.               [ KURIAN JOSEPH ]  

.......................J.               [ ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN ]  New Delhi; February 02, 2016.