# Sanjit Roy v. State of R

- **Citation:** (2008) 2 ILRA 441
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2008-03-05
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 12931 of 2008
- **Bench:** Dr. B.S. Chauhan, Arun Tandon
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/sanjit-roy-v-state-of-r-41083
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

Constitution of India, Art. 23-'Begar'-
petitioner
appointed
on
honorarium
basis for fixed terms-with stipulation no
right for regularization-if management
taking other work also-petitioner can
refused to work or to file damage suitbut
public
exchequer
can
not
be
burdened nor it can be termed as
'Begar'-while complete ban on Ad-hoc
appointment.

Held: Para 12

In the instant case, the aforesaid law
does not apply at all. It is not the case or
petitioner that he had been working as
full time teacher or had ever been
appointed as full time lecturer nor he has
stated that he had been forced to work
in contravention of the terms of his
appointment letter or the Government
Order
under
which
he
has
been
appointed.
Case law discussed:
AIR 1983 SC 328, 2000 (1) AWC 221, A.I.R,
1986 SC 584, (1986) 1 SCC 637, AIR 1982 SC

## Text

2 All] Tarun Kumar V. State of U.P. and others
441
certified copy of this order is filed before
him. Writ petition is allowed subject to
the observation made.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 05.03.2008

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.
THE HON'BLE ARUN TANDON, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 12931 of 2008

Tarun Kumar

...Petitioner
Versus
State of U. P. and others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Vishnu Behari Tiwari

Counsel for the Respondents:
S.C.

Constitution of India, Art. 23-'Begar'-
petitioner
appointed
on
honorarium
basis for fixed terms-with stipulation no
right for regularization-if management
taking other work also-petitioner can
refused to work or to file damage suitbut
public
exchequer
can
not
be
burdened nor it can be termed as
'Begar'-while complete ban on Ad-hoc
appointment.

Held: Para 12

In the instant case, the aforesaid law
does not apply at all. It is not the case or
petitioner that he had been working as
full time teacher or had ever been
appointed as full time lecturer nor he has
stated that he had been forced to work
in contravention of the terms of his
appointment letter or the Government
Order
under
which
he
has
been
appointed.
Case law discussed:
AIR 1983 SC 328, 2000 (1) AWC 221, A.I.R,
1986 SC 584, (1986) 1 SCC 637, AIR 1982 SC
1473. 2000 (1) A.W.C. 221, (2004) 1 A.W.C.
321, (2002) 2 ESC 427

(Delivered by Hon'ble Dr. B.S. Chauhan, J.)

1. This writ petition has been filed
seeking the following reliefs:

(i) Issue a writ or order or direction in
the nature of mandamus to punish the
respondents for contravention of Article
23 of the Constitution of India in
accordance with law.
(ii) Issue a writ or order or direction in
the nature of mandamus to pay the
amount of compensation of Rs. 15 lacs to
the petitioner from the respondents.

2. The aforesaid reliefs had been
sought by the petitioner on the ground
that the petitioner, who is duly qualified
to be appointed as a teacher (lecturer) in a
degree college affiliated to the University
and aided by the State Government, had
been exploited and forced to work at a
meagre amount of Rs.5,000/= (enhanced
to Rs.8,000/=) per month.

3. The petitioner applied in
pursuance of an advertisement dated 2204-1998 for appointment on honorarium
for the subject of Botany in D.S.A.
College, Unnao. He was appointed and
joined on 01-08-1998. Since then the
petitioner had been working continuously.
In addition to teaching work, he has also
been
looking
after
the
other
responsibilities as being In-charge of
game etc. The petitioner was paid
honorarium at the rate of Rs.5,000/= per
month upto 10th September, 2006 and
subsequent thereto he is getting a sum of
Rs.8,000/= per month. The petitioner
claims that he had been working under
compelling circumstances on meagre
442 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2008
salary, such an employment has to be
termed as 'begar' which is prohibited
under the provisions of Article 23 of the
Constitution
of
India.
Therefore,
respondents should be prosecuted for
contravention of the mandate of Article
23 of the Constitution of India and
petitioner should be compensated by
awarding Rs. 15 lacs as compensation.

4. Sri Vishnu Behari Tiwari, learned
counsel for the petitioner contends that in
the facts of this case the law laid down by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Sanjit Roy Vs. State of Rajasthan, AIR
1983 SC 328 as also the law laid down in
Mukesh Chandra Vs. State of UP & Ors.,
2000 (1) AWC 221, is squarely applicable
and therefore petitioner is entitled for the
aforesaid reliefs.

5. On the other hand, learned
Standing
Counsel
has
vehemently
opposed the petition contending that the
petitioner has not stated the correct facts
leading
to
his
appointment
on
honorarium, which in fact has been an
arrangement under special circumstances.
The U.P. Higher Education Service
Commission duly constituted under the
provisions of U.P. Higher Education
Service Commission Act, 1980 could not
complete the regular selection of teachers
for certain reasons. The State Government
as a special measure provided for reemployment of retired teachers initially
under the Government Order of 1997 on
part time basis fixing the remuneration on
per lecture basis as prescribed by the
University
Grants
Commission.
As
sufficient number of retired teachers were
not available and some retired teachers
were not willing to accept the job, the
State
Government
came
with
a
Government Order dated 17th April, 1998
providing for part time teachers on
honorarium basis at the rate of Rs.100/=
per lecturer (as prescribed by University
Grants Commission) to the maximum of
Rs.5,000/=
in
a
month.
The
said
Government Order specifically provides
that the appointment would be for a fixed
tenure and no renewal was to be granted.
Though the Government Order did not put
any embargo for such a candidate to apply
afresh if the post was advertised for the
next session. There was a clear cut
stipulation that such appointees would not
claim regularization. In such a fact
situation, as the remuneration had been
fixed on per lecture basis and since the
engagement of the petitioner is not a full
time basis, there is no obligation upon
such person to remain on job after he has
delivered
the
particular
lecture
as
assigned
to
him
by
the
authority
concerned, therefore the engagement of
the petitioner cannot be termed as a
'begar'.

6. It is further contended by learned
Standing Counsel that if the petitioner had
been looking after any other work of the
institution
on
the
asking
of
the
management, it was a private arrangement
between him and the Committee of
Management for which he cannot burden
the public exchequer, though he may seek
relief against the management. Therefore,
according to Standing Counsel petition is
liable to be dismissed.

7. We have considered the rival
submissions made by learned counsel for
the parties and have perused the records.

8. In Surinder Singh & Arn. Vs. The
Engineer-in-Chief, C.P.W.D. & ors.,
A.I.R, 1986 SC 584, the Hon'ble Supreme
Court with reference to its earlier
2 All] Tarun Kumar V. State of U.P. and others
443
judgment in Dhirendra Chamoli & Anr.
Vs. State of U.P., (1986) 1 SCC 637,
rejected a similar contention observing as
under:-

"This argument lies ill in the mouth
of the Central Government for it is an all
too familiar argument with the exploiting
class and a welfare State committed to a
socialist pattern of society cannot be
permitted to advance such an argument. It
must be remembered that in this country
where there is so much unemployment,
the choice for the majority of people is to
starve or to take employment on whatever
exploitative terms are offered by the
employer. The fact that these employees
accepted
employment
with
full
knowledge that they will be paid only
daily wages and they will not get the same
salary and conditions of service as other
class IV employees, cannot provide an
escape to the Central Government to
avoid the mandate of equality enshrined
in Article 14 of the Constitution. This
Article declares that there should be
equality before law and equal protection
of law and implicit in it is the further
principle that there must be equal pay for
equal work of equal value..... It makes no
difference whether they are appointed in
sanctioned posts or not. So long as they
are performing the same duties, they must
receive the same salary and conditions of
service as Class IV employees."

9. In Sanjit Roy Vs. State of
Rajasthan, AIR 1983 SC 328, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court considered the case
providing exemption from labour laws,
the provisions of Rajasthan Famine Relief
Works
Employees.(Exemption
from
Labour laws) Act, 1964 and held that as
the said act deprived the workers of the
benefit of the Minimum Wages Act, it
was violative of Article 23 of the
Constitution of India.

10. While deciding the said case,
reliance had been placed upon earlier
judgement
in
people's
Union
for
Democratic Rights & Ors. Vs. Un ion of
India & Ors., AIR 1982 SC 1473.

11. In Mukesh Chandra Vs. State of
U.P. & Ors., 2000 (1) A.W.C. 221, a
similar view has been reiterated by this
Court holding that forcing a person to
work for a meager sum violates Article 23
of the Constitution of India and directions
were issued for prosecution of Mandi
Samiti guilty of taking 'begar' by
exploiting helpless unemployed persons.

12. In the instant case, the aforesaid
law does not apply at all. It is not the case
or petitioner that he had been working as
full time teacher or had ever been
appointed as full time lecturer nor he has
stated that he had been forced to work in
contravention
of
the terms of his
appointment letter or the Government
Order under which he has been appointed.

13. For the reasons best known to
the petitioner, the institution, where
petitioner claims to have been teaching is
not impleaded as a party, only the society
running the said institution has been
impleaded.

14. We may clarify that it is at the
option of such teacher appointed on per
lecture basis to take as many lectures as
he wants and for each lecture he is
entitled to get Rs.100/= per lecture subject
however the maximum of Rs.5,000/=
(now enhanced Rs.8,000/=), meaning
thereby that the day an appointee
completes 50 lectures in a month or 80
444 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2008
lectures in a month, he has a right to
refuse any further responsibility to teach
the students and in such a situation the
management
would
have
to
make
alternative arrangement.
15. It may also be pertinent to
mention here that under the statutory
provisions there is a complete prohibition
for ad-hoc appointment of teachers after
the withdrawal of Section 16 of the
Commissions
Act.
The
Government
Order under which the petitioner claims to
have been appointed itself has been a
subject matter of challenge before this
Court in Malvika Shekhar Vs. Director of
Higher Education, U.P. & Ors., (2004) 1
A.W.C.
321
wherein
after
making
reference to the statutory provisions, the
Court came to the conclusion that the
appointment on honorarium is void ab
initio as it is prohibited under the statute.

16. Another Division Bench of this
court In Alok Singh Vs. State of U.P.,
(2002) 2 ESC 427 has held that the terms
and conditions of appointment as a part
time lecture under Government Order
dated 7-4-1998 are entirely different visa-vis lecturers appointed on regular basis.

17. It is pointed out that the said
judgement in Malvika Shekhar (supra)
had been challenged before the Hon'ble
Supreme
Court
and
still
pending
consideration and the persons working on
honorarium
have
been
allowed
to
continue because of the interim order
passed by the Apex Court in the said case.

18. In view of the above, the petition
is devoid of merit and is accordingly
dismissed. However, if the petitioner feels
aggrieved that he is being exploited by the
Committee of Management and is being
forced to work in contravention of the
said Government Order dated 17th April,
1998 or terms and conditions incorporated
in his appointment letter, he is at liberty to
approach the Civil Court for damages
against the management of the college.
However, he cannot be permitted to have
any claim against the public exchequer.

 Petition dismissed.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 13.03.2008

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE V.M. SAHAI, J.
THE HON'BLE R.N. MISRA, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 38949 of 2002

Smt. Sharda Saharan

...Petitioner
Versus
Director General of Police, U.P. and
others

 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri L.P. Naithani
Sri Pankaj Agarwal
Sri M.K. Gupta

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri G.K. Singh
Sri L.M. Singh
S.C.

Code of Civil Procedure-Order XXI Rule
32-readwith Constitution of India Art.
226-Restoration of possession-civil court
decreed the suit in favour of petitionerupheld upto second Appeal-No SLP filed
before Apex Court-private Respondentson application under Section 156 (3)
Cr.P.C. got arrested and during this
period wrongly taken possession of the
house in question-once decree became
final-petitioner to approach before civil
Court for execution-No separate suit or
writ
petition
maintainable
otherwise
there will be endless litigation-petition
dismissed.