# Chhavi Ram v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2024) 4 ILRA 274
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-04-16
- **Case number:** Writ A No. 4827 of 2022
- **Bench:** Abdul Moin
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/chhavi-ram-v-state-of-u-p-anr-51792
- **Pages:** 7

## Headnote

A. Service Law - U.P. Qualifying Service
for Pension and Validation Act, 2021 -
Minimum Pay Scale for Daily Wagers -
Petitioner, a daily wager appointed in 1990,
sought minimum pay scale and increments from
1990 to regularization in 2002 - Challenged
rejection order dated 19.05.2022 - Held, daily
wagers entitled to minimum pay scale of regular
employees for same post, as per Sabha Shanker
Dube Vs Divisional Forest Officer - Petitioner
entitled to minimum pay scale from 1994 (three
years prior to filing Writ A No. 2023 of 1997) till
regularization on 25.02.2002 - Increments not
permissible as per St. of U.P. Vs Puttilal, which
prevails over Gyan Prakash Srivastava Vs St. of
U.P. - Claim for counting daily wage service for
pension subject to challenge of vires of Act,
2021, as per Ram Das Yadav Vs St. of U.P. -
Impugned order quashed, respondents directed
to pay minimum pay scale with arrears. (Para
13, 16-19)

Writ petition partly allowed.

List of Cases cited:

## Text

274 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
that discipline is the implicit hallmark of
armed
forces
and
a
non-negotiable
conditions of service.

(30) Having regard to the aforesaid
facts and circumstances of the case, what
this Court find is that learned counsel for
the petitioner has failed to point out any
illegality, perversity or ambiguity in the
orders under challenge so as to warrant the
indulgence of this Court under Article 226
of the Constitution of India.

(31) In view of the aforesaid, this
Court do not find any justifiable ground to
exercise
extraordinary
jurisdiction
to
interfere with the orders impugned and as
such, the present writ petition, being devoid
of merits, is dismissed.

(32) However, in the facts of the
present case, there shall be no order as to
costs.
----------
(2024) 4 ILRA 274
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 16.04.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ABDUL MOIN, J.

Writ A No. 4827 of 2022

Chhavi Ram ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Avinash Tiwari, Anuj Kumar Mishra

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

A. Service Law - U.P. Qualifying Service
for Pension and Validation Act, 2021 -
Minimum Pay Scale for Daily Wagers -
Petitioner, a daily wager appointed in 1990,
sought minimum pay scale and increments from
1990 to regularization in 2002 - Challenged
rejection order dated 19.05.2022 - Held, daily
wagers entitled to minimum pay scale of regular
employees for same post, as per Sabha Shanker
Dube Vs Divisional Forest Officer - Petitioner
entitled to minimum pay scale from 1994 (three
years prior to filing Writ A No. 2023 of 1997) till
regularization on 25.02.2002 - Increments not
permissible as per St. of U.P. Vs Puttilal, which
prevails over Gyan Prakash Srivastava Vs St. of
U.P. - Claim for counting daily wage service for
pension subject to challenge of vires of Act,
2021, as per Ram Das Yadav Vs St. of U.P. -
Impugned order quashed, respondents directed
to pay minimum pay scale with arrears. (Para
13, 16-19)

Writ petition partly allowed.

List of Cases cited:

1. Sabha Shanker Dube Vs Divisional Forest
Officer; (2019) 12 SCC 297

2. St. of U.P. Vs Puttilal; (2006) 9 SCC 337

3. St. of Haryana Vs Tilak Raj; (2003) 6 SCC 123

4. St. of Punjab Vs Surjit Singh; (2009) 9 SCC
514

5. St. of Punjab Vs Jagjit Singh; (2017) 1 SCC
148

6. Gyan Prakash Srivastava Vs St. of U.P.; Writ
Petition
No.
5923
(SS)
of
1996,
dated
18.10.2016

7. Ram Das Yadav Vs St. of U.P.; Writ Petition
No. 25955 (SS) of 2017, dated 08.11.2021

8. Habib Khan Vs St. of Uttarakhand; Civil
Appeal No. 10806 of 2017, dated 23.08.2017

9. Prem Singh Vs St. of U.P.; (2019) 10 SCC 516

(Delivered by Hon'ble Abdul Moin, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
petitioner and Shri Saharsh Shrivastav,
4 All. Chhavi Ram Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
275
learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel
for the respondents no. 1 and 2.

2. The instant writ petition has been
filed praying for the following main
relief(s):

"(i) issue a writ, order or
direction in the nature of certiorari
quashing
the
impugned
order
dated
19.05.2022 passed by opp-party no.2 with
all consequential benefits, as is contained
in annexure no. 1 respectively to this writ
petition.

(ii) issue a writ, order or
direction in the nature of mandamus
commanding
the
opposite
parties
to
provide the regular pay scale of class IV
post with yearly increments on the period
of 22.07.1990 to 25.02.2002, with all other
consequential benefits of service, within
time as directed by this Hon'ble Court.

(iii) issue a writ, order or
direction in the nature of mandamus
commanding the opposite parties to refix
the salary and post retirement benefits and
pension of petitioner after providing
regular pay scale of class IV post with
yearly increments on the period of
22.07.1990 to 25.02.2002, within time as
directed by this Hon'ble Court.

(iv) issue a writ, order or
direction in the nature of mandamus
commanding the opposite parties to grant
and pay all retirement benefit of petitioner
after counting his entire services for the
purpose of qualifying service for retirement
benefit."

3. The case set forth by the petitioner
is that the petitioner had been appointed on
daily wage basis on 22.07.1990 under the
respondents. As the petitioner was not
being paid the minimum pay scale he was
constrained to approach this Court by filing
Writ A No. 2023 of 1997 in re: Chhavi
Ram vs State of U.P. and others praying for
following reliefs:

"(i) issue a writ, order or
direction in the nature of mandamus
commanding commanding the opposite
parties to give regular scale of pay to the
petitioner that is Rs.750-940 which is being
given to the other counter-parts of the
petitioner;

(ii) issue a writ, order or
direction in the nature of mandamus
commanding
the
opposite
parties
to
regularise the services of the petitioner
from the date of initial appointment that is
22.07.1990 in Class IV establishment and
further.

(iii) issue a writ, order or
direction in the nature of mandamus
commanding the opposite parties to give all
consequential benefits such as seniority in
Class IV establishment from the date of
initial appointment i.e. 22.7.1990, arrears
of difference of pay and other benefits
arising thereof."

4. During pendency of the aforesaid
writ petition the service of the petitioner
was
regularised
vide
order
dated
25.02.2002, a copy of which is annexure 2
to
the
petition.
The
petitioner
was
regularised on a class IV post in the pay
scale of Rs 2550-55-2660-60-3200. The
petitioner also retired on attaining the age
of
superannuation
on
31.07.2021.
Subsequent to his retirement, the writ
petition filed by the petitioner has been
decided vide judgement and order dated
12.04.2022, a copy of which is annexure 3
to the petition, whereby the writ court has
permitted to the petitioner to file a fresh
representation to the respondent no. 2 with
respect of his grievance and the respondent
no. 2 was directed to consider the same and
276 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
pass a reasoned and speaking order. In
pursuance
thereof
the
claim
of
the
petitioner for grant of minimum pay scale
and increments has been rejected primarily
on the ground that the petitioner has been
regularized vide the order dated 25.02.2002
and other persons who have been granted a
minimum pay scale have been granted the
same in pursuance to the order passed by
the writ court.

5. Raising a challenge to the said
order the instant writ petition has been filed
with the reliefs as aforesaid.

6. The argument of learned counsel
for the petitioner is that grant of minimum
pay scale to daily wagers is no longer resintegra having been settled by Hon'ble
Apex Court in the case of Sabha Shanker
Dube vs Divisional Forest Officer and
others, 2019 (12) SCC 297 wherein
Hon'ble Apex Court, after considering
various other judgements, has held that
temporary employees are entitled to draw
wages at minimum of pay scales which are
applicable to regular employees holding the
said post. The contention is that when the
petitioner was appointed on daily wages
basis way back in the year 1990 and staked
his claim for being given minimum pay
scale in the year 1997 as such the petitioner
is entitled for being given the minimum of
pay scale of a class IV post with effect
from the date of appointment till his
regularization on 25.02.2002 with all
attendant
benefits
including
yearly
increments.

7. With regard to claim for grant of
yearly increments reliance has been placed
on a judgement of this Court in the case of
Gyan Prakash Srivastava and others vs
State of U.P. and others passed in Writ
Petition No. 5923 (SS) of 1996 decided on
18.10.2016, a copy of which is annexure 7
to the petition which judgement has held
that daily wagers who have been given a
regular pay scale would be entitled to
annual increment.

8. On the other hand, learned
Standing Counsel on the basis of averments
contained in the counter affidavit argues
that as the petitioner already stands
regularised in service on 25.02.2002 and
now
stands
retired
on
31.07.2021
consequently there cannot be any occasion
for grant of minimum pay scale to the
petitioner.

9. So far as grant of increments to
petitioner is concerned on the basis of
judgement of this Court in the case of
Gyan
Prakash
Srivastava
(supra),
reliance has been placed on judgement of
Hon'ble Apex Court passed in the case of
State of U.P. & others vs Puttilal, 2006
(9) SCC 337 to contend that Hon'ble Apex
Court has held that grant of minimum pay
scale to a daily wager would not entail
grant of any increment or any other
allowance and thus the petitioner is not
entitled for any increment on payment of
minimum pay scale or other allowances.

10. Heard learned counsels for the
parties and perused the records.

11. From perusal of record it emerges
that the petitioner was initially appointed
on daily wages in July 1990. As he was not
being paid the minimum of pay scale, he
staked his claim for being given minimum
pay scale by filing Writ A No. 2023 of
1997 praying for being granted the regular
scale of pay of Rs 750-940 and to
regularise his services. During pendency of
writ petition the service of the petitioner
was
regularised
on
25.02.2002.
The
4 All. Chhavi Ram Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
277
petitioner has retired from service on
attaining the age of superannuation on
31.07.2021. Subsequent to the petitioners
regularisation and retirement from service,
the writ petition filed by the petitioner for
grant of minimum pay scale has been
decided vide the judgement and order dated
12.04.2022 leaving it open to the petitioner
to
submit
a
representation
and
the
respondents were required to decide the
said representation in accordance with law.
The said representation and the claim of the
petitioner for grant of minimum pay scale
has been rejected vide the order impugned
dated 19.05.2022 primarily on the ground
that as the petitioner now stands regularised
on 25.02.2002 as such he would not be
entitled for grant of minimum pay scale
apart from the fact that various other
persons who have been granted minimum
of pay scale have been granted the same in
pursuance to the order of this Court.

12. The grant of minimum pay scale
to a person working on daily wage basis is
no longer res-integra having been settled by
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sabha
Shanker Dube (supra) wherein Hon'ble
Apex Court has held as under:

"9. The daily-wagers relied upon
a judgment of this Court in Putti Lal [State
of U.P. v. Putti Lal, (2006) 9 SCC 337 :
2006 SCC (L&S) 1819] and submitted that
the same relief may be extended to them. It
is relevant to note that the judgment in
Putti Lal [State of U.P. v. Putti Lal, (2006)
9 SCC 337 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 1819]
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
regularisation
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
regularisation. 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 State of U.P. v. Chhiddi [State of
U.P. v. Chhiddi, 2015 SCC OnLine All
9087 : (2016) 1 All LJ 226] referred to the
judgment in Putti Lal [State of U.P. v. Putti
Lal, (2006) 9 SCC 337 : 2006 SCC (L&S)
1819] but placed reliance on a later
judgment of this Court in Tilak Raj [State
of Haryana v. Tilak Raj, (2003) 6 SCC 123
: 2003 SCC (L&S) 828] . The Division
Bench of the High Court also cited Surjit
Singh [State of Punjab v. Surjit Singh,
(2009) 9 SCC 514 : (2009) 2 SCC (L&S)
696] to hold that the daily-wagers cannot
seek the benefit of the judgment of Putti Lal
case [State of U.P. v. Putti Lal, (2006) 9
SCC 337 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 1819] in view
of the 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.

10.
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 [State of Punjab v.
Jagjit Singh, (2017) 1 SCC 148 : (2017) 1
SCC (L&S) 1] held as follows: (SCC p.
223, para 58)

"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
278 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
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."

11. The issue that was considered
by this Court in Jagjit Singh [State of
Punjab v. Jagjit Singh, (2017) 1 SCC 148 :
(2017) 1 SCC (L&S) 1] 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 [State of Haryana v. Tilak Raj,
(2003) 6 SCC 123 : 2003 SCC (L&S) 828]
and Surjit Singh [State of Punjab v. Surjit
Singh, (2009) 9 SCC 514 : (2009) 2 SCC
(L&S)
696],
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.

12 In view of the judgment in
Jagjit Singh [State of Punjab v. Jagjit
Singh, (2017) 1 SCC 148 : (2017) 1 SCC
(L&S) 1] , 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 scales. We are not
called upon to adjudicate on the rights of
the appellants relating to the regularisation
of their services. We are concerned only
with the principle laid down by this Court
initially in Putti Lal [State of U.P. v. Putti
Lal, (2006) 9 SCC 337 : 2006 SCC (L&S)
1819] relating to persons who are similarly
situated to the appellants and later
affirmed in Jagjit Singh [State of Punjab v.
Jagjit Singh, (2017) 1 SCC 148 : (2017) 1
SCC (L&S) 1] that temporary employees
are entitled to minimum of the pay scales
as long as they continue in service.

14.
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 1-12-2018."
(emphasis by the Court)

13. From a perusal of the judgment of
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sabha
Shanker Dube (supra) it emerges that
Hon'ble Apex Court after considering its
earlier judgements in the case of Tilak Raj
(supra) and Jagjit Singh (supra) has held
that temporary employees are entitled to
minimum
of
pay
scales
which
are
applicable to regular employees holding the
same post. Once admittedly the petitioner
was working as a temporary employee /
daily wager right since the year 1990 and
he staked his claim for being granted the
minimum pay scale in the year 1997 and
Hon'ble Apex Court has also held that a
temporary employee would be entitled to
draw wages at minimum of pay scales
which are applicable to the regular
4 All. Chhavi Ram Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
279
employees
holding
the
same
post
consequently, there cannot be any occasion
for non grant of minimum pay scale to the
petitioner as are applicable to regular
employees holding the same post and
accordingly the petitioner is entitled for
grant of minimum of pay scale for a period
from three years prior to filing of writ
petition in the year 1997 i.e. since the year
1994
with
arrears
of
pay
till
his
regularisation on 25.02.2002.

14. So far as the relief of grant of
increments is concerned, the sheet anchor
of the claim of the petitioner is the
judgement of this Court in the case of
Gyan
Prakash
Srivastava
(supra)
wherein this Court has held as under:

"Since
petitioners
had
been
appointed in the years 1982, 1983 and
1984 as Junior Clerk on daily wage basis
against the sanctioned post of Junior
Clerks and their services have been
regularized and they have been given pay
scale of regular Junior Clerk from the date
of their initial appointment, there appears
no reason not to provide annual increments
to them from the date of their initial
appointment. The stand taken by the
opposite parties for not providing annual
increments to petitioners from the date of
initial
appointments
being
not
in
accordance with law, rather being without
any basis and justification, the order dated
15th may 1996 of the State Government
denying annual increments to petitioners
from the date of their initial appointment is
not sustainable in the eyes of law. The
order is, therefore, quashed and opposite
parties are directed to provide annual
increments to petitioners from the date of
their initial appointment within a period of
three months from the date of production of
certified copy of this order."

15. However Hon'ble Apex Court in
the case of Puttilal (supra) has held as
under: paragraph 5 dalna hai

"5. 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 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 counterpart 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 payscale 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."
(emphasis by the Court)

16. From perusal of judgement of
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Puttilal
(supra) it clearly emerges that though daily
wagers would be entitled for grant of
minimum pay scale yet would not be
entitled to draw any allowances or any
increments while drawing the minimum
pay scale.

17. Perusal of the judgement of Gyan
Prakash
Srivastava
(supra)
would
indicate that the said judgement has been
passed by Hon'ble Single Judge of this
Court. However while passing the said
judgement, the writ court has failed to
consider the judgement of Hon'ble Apex
Court in the case of Puttilal (supra)
280 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
wherein the Apex Court has categorically
held that though the daily wagers are entitled
for grant of minimum pay scale yet they
would not be entitled to draw any increments.

18. Thus the single bench judgement of
this Court in the case of Gyan Prakash
Srivastava (supra) would have to give way
to the judgment Hon'ble Apex Court in the
case of Puttilal (supra). Accordingly, the
petitioner would not be entitled to draw any
increments on the minimum pay scale which
would be payable to him.

19. As regards the prayer of counting
entire service rendered by petitioner as daily
wager for the purpose of qualifying service
for retirement benefits, though no arguments
have been advanced by both learned counsel
for the petitioner and learned Additional
Chief Standing Counsel on the said prayer yet
what the Court finds is that keeping in view
the promulgation of the Uttar Pradesh
Qualifying
Service
for
Pension
and
Validation Act, 2021 (hereinafter referred to
as the Act, 2021) which defines qualifying
service as the services rendered by an officer
appointed on a temporary or permanent post
in accordance with the provisions of the
service rules prescribed by the Government
for the post and the fact that a full bench of
this Court in a bunch of writ petitions leading
being Writ Petition No. 25955 (SS) of 2017
in re: Ram Das Yadav vs State of U.P. and
others
decided
on
08.11.2021
after
considering the judgement of Hon'ble Apex
Court in the case of Habib Khan vs State of
Uttarakhand passed in Civil Appeal No.
10806 of 2017 decided on 23.08.2017 and
considering Regulations 370 of the U.P. Civil
Service Regulations as well as judgement of
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Prem
Singh vs State of U.P. and others, 2019
(10) SCC 516 has held that with
promulgation
of
Act,
2021
defining
qualifying services for pension which Act
has been given retrospective effect from
01.04.1961 and the validity of the Act has
been challenged in a bunch of petitions the
leading being Writ Petition No. 25955 (SS)
of 2017 as such the relief prayed for by the
petitioner may not survive as the same will
depend on the result of the petitioner
challenging the vires of the Act, 2021.
Accordingly, considering the full bench
judgement in the case of Ram Das Yadav
(supra) the petitioner, if so advised, may
challenge the vires of the Act, 2021.

20.

Considering
the
aforesaid
discussion, the writ petition is partly
allowed.
The
order
impugned
dated
19.05.2022, a copy of which is annexure 1 to
the petition, is quashed. The respondents are
directed to pay the minimum of pay scale to
the petitioner as was applicable to regular
employees working on the same post. The
pay scale shall be payable along with arrears
with effect from 3 years prior to filing of Writ
A No. 2023 of 1997 till the date of
regularization of the petitioner i.e. till
25.02.2002.

21. Let the compliance be made within
a period of three months from the date of
production of a certified copy of this order.
----------
(2024) 4 ILRA 280
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 27.02.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE VIVEK KUMAR BIRLA, J.
THE HON'BLE DONADI RAMESH, J.

Writ A No. 5017 of 2023

Vibha Tiwari ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents