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 Raj1 and  State of Punjab v.  Surjit

Singh2 , 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  Lal3 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 re-

consider  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 self- respect 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