# Ramu & Ors v. State of U.P. & Ors - **Citation:** (2021) 8 ILRA 151 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2021-07-30 - **Case number:** Service Single No. 29822 of 2017 - **Bench:** Rajesh Singh Chauhan - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ramu-ors-v-state-of-u-p-ors-47169 - **Pages:** 2 ## Headnote A. Civil Law - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order I Rule 10 - Rent suit - Nature and Scope - Impleadment - Permissibility - Enlargement of cause of action altering it in a Title suit - Extent of - Held, cause of action cannot be enlarged so as to alter the scope of a rent suit to a title suit - Ex-hypothesi, no party can be impleaded who seeks to bring in a cause of action that would ultimately convert the rent suit into a title suit - This position of the law is beyond cavil, going by consistent authority - Courts below have not committed any error of law in declining the petitioner's prayer to be impleaded in a rent suit. (Para 7 and 11) ## Text 8 All. Ramu & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. 151 the Inquiry Officer to conduct and conclude the inquiry against the petitioner in a manner directed above and the disciplinary authority may pass final order strictly as per law. 30. It is, however, made clear that no prejudice shall be caused to the petitioner for the reason that he has filed the aforesaid writ petitions challenging the suspension order and charge-sheet. 31. No order as to costs. ---------- (2021)08ILR A151 ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: LUCKNOW 30.07.2021 BEFORE THE HON'BLE RAJESH SINGH CHAUHAN, J. Service Single No. 29822 of 2017 Ramu & Ors. ...Petitioners Versus State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioners: Prashant Kumar Singh Counsel for the Respondents: C.S.C. A. Service Law - Wages - If any employee is discharging his duties on daily wages basis for substantially long period, he should be paid minimum of pay scale admissible for Class-IV employee. (para 4) Writ Petition Allowed. (E-8) List of Cases cited:- 1. Sabha Shanker Dube Vs Divisional forest Officer & ors. (2019) 12 SCC 297 (followed) (Delivered by Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan, J.) 1. Heard Sri Prashant Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel for the Staterespondents. 2. By means of this petition, the petitioners have prayed following relief; "(a) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of MANDAMUS commanding the opposite parties to consider the cases of the petitioners for payment of the wages equivalent to the minimum of pay scale of Class IV employee with permissible allowances in the Forest Department within a specified period." 3. Contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that the petitioners were appointed between November, 1994 to November, 2009 on daily wages basis in the Forest Department, Lakhimpur Kheri on different dates and are continuing on daily wages against Group-D post till date. He has further submitted that so many similarly placed employees are getting payment of minimum of pay scale. He has further submitted that the Hon'ble Apex Court in catena of cases has held that if any employee is discharging his duties on daily wages basis for substantially long period, his regularization should be considered and till consideration of regularization, he should be paid minimum scale of pay admissible for Class-IV employee. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the material available on record, I am of the considered opinion that if the petitioners are continuously discharging their duties since their initial engagement as daily wagers, 152 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES then they should be paid minimum of pay scale admissible for Class-IV employee in view of the dictum of the Hon'ble Apex Court in re; Sabha Shanker Dube v. Divisional Forest Officer and others, (2019) 12 SCC 297. Paragraphs 12, 13 & 14 of the aforesaid judgment are being reproduced herein below:- "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. 13. 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. 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." 5. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. A writ in the nature of mandamus is issued commanding the opposite parties to pay the minimum of pay scale to the petitioners applicable to a regular employee working on the same post forthwith, preferably within a period of one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. 6. No order as to costs. ---------- (2021)08ILR A152 ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 27.07.2021 BEFORE THE HON'BLE J.J. MUNIR, J. Writ A ( Rent Control) No. 960 of 2011 Noor Ahmad ...Petitioner Versus Qazi Zafar Ahmad & Anr. ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri A.K. Mehrotra, Sri Pranjal Mehrotra Counsel for the Respondents: Sri Manish Tandon A. Civil Law - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order I Rule 10 - Rent suit - Nature and Scope - Impleadment - Permissibility - Enlargement of cause of action altering it in a Title suit - Extent of - Held, cause of action cannot be enlarged so as to alter the scope of a rent suit to a title suit - Ex-hypothesi, no party can be impleaded who seeks to bring in a cause of action that would ultimately convert the rent suit into a title suit - This position of the law is beyond cavil, going by consistent authority - Courts below have not committed any error of law in declining the petitioner's prayer to be impleaded in a rent suit. (Para 7 and 11)