# Smt. Ram Shri & Anr v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2015) 1 ILRA 146
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2015-02-11
- **Case number:** Special Appeal Defective No. 119 of 2015
- **Bench:** Dr. Dhananjaya Yeshwant Chandrachud, C.J. Suneet Kumar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/smt-ram-shri-anr-v-state-of-u-p-ors-43262
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

High Court Rules, Chapter VIII, Rule 5Special Appeal-against order by Single
Judge-direction to pay minimum wages
to daily wages-as payable those daily
wager of other department-now claim
that minimum pay scale as payable to
regular employees of same cadre-heldappointment without following rules of
selection-para 54 of Uma Devi casefurther clarified by Apex Court in Surjeet
Singh case-claim of minimum wages-not
maintainable-appeal dismissed.
Held: Para-9
In this background and in view of the
clear position in law, it would not be
possible for this Court to accept the
contention of the appellants that they
should be allowed the minimum of the
pay scale merely on the basis of certain
directions which were issued in the past.
This Court must be governed by the
principle of law which has been laid
down
in
several
judgments
of
the
Supreme Court noted above. As daily
wage employees, the appellants would
be entitle to receive minimum wages, as
directed by the learned Single Judge in
the impugned judgment. Their claim to
receive
salary
payable
to
regular
employees of the University at the
minimum of the pay scale would not be
maintainable in law.
Case Law discussed:
(2006) 4 SCC 1; Civil Misc. W.P. No. 51066 of
2013; Spl. Appeal D No. 477 of 2010; (2009) 9
SCC 514; [(2014) 4 UPLBEC 3128].

## Text

146
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
8. The special appeal stands,
accordingly, allowed. There shall be no
order as to costs.
--------
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 11.02.2015
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE DR. DHANANJAYA YESHWANT
CHANDRACHUD, C.J.
THE HON'BLE SUNEET KUMAR, J.
Special Appeal Defective No. 119 of 2015
Smt. Ram Shri & Anr. ...Appellants
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors.
...Respondents
Counsel for the Appellants:
Sri Suresh Singh, Sri Bhanu Pratap Singh
Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Shiv Nath Singh
High Court Rules, Chapter VIII, Rule 5Special Appeal-against order by Single
Judge-direction to pay minimum wages
to daily wages-as payable those daily
wager of other department-now claim
that minimum pay scale as payable to
regular employees of same cadre-heldappointment without following rules of
selection-para 54 of Uma Devi casefurther clarified by Apex Court in Surjeet
Singh case-claim of minimum wages-not
maintainable-appeal dismissed.
Held: Para-9
In this background and in view of the
clear position in law, it would not be
possible for this Court to accept the
contention of the appellants that they
should be allowed the minimum of the
pay scale merely on the basis of certain
directions which were issued in the past.
This Court must be governed by the
principle of law which has been laid
down
in
several
judgments
of
the
Supreme Court noted above. As daily
wage employees, the appellants would
be entitle to receive minimum wages, as
directed by the learned Single Judge in
the impugned judgment. Their claim to
receive
salary
payable
to
regular
employees of the University at the
minimum of the pay scale would not be
maintainable in law.
Case Law discussed:
(2006) 4 SCC 1; Civil Misc. W.P. No. 51066 of
2013; Spl. Appeal D No. 477 of 2010; (2009) 9
SCC 514; [(2014) 4 UPLBEC 3128].
(Delivered by Hon'ble Dr. Dhananjaya
Yeshwant Chandrachud, C.J.)
1. The appellants are daily wagers in
the employment of the Chandra Shekhar
Azad University of Agriculture and
Technology,
represented
in
these
proceedings by the second and third
respondents. The appellants had filed a
writ petition1 seeking to challenge an
order passed by the third respondent
declining their claim for the payment of
wages at the minimum of the pay scale
admissible to regular employees and a
writ of mandamus for the payment of the
minimum of the pay scale. By the
impugned judgment and order of the
learned Single Judge dated 15 May 2014,
the University has been directed to pay
atleast the minimum wages as prescribed
by the Government. The appellants are in
appeal, seeking a direction for the
payment of the minimum of the pay scale
as admissible to regular employees of the
University.
2. Initially, the appellants filed a
writ petition (Writ - A No. 29214 of
2013), seeking regularization and pay
parity of the minimum wages being paid
to
the
regular
employees
of
the
University. The University resisted the
petition on the ground that there was no
rule for regularization and such a claim
1 All] Smt. Ram Shri & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
147
could not be made in view of the
judgment of the Supreme Court in
Secretary, State of Karnataka and others
Vs. Uma Devi (3) and others2. The writ
petition was disposed of with a direction
to the competent authority to consider the
grievance in accordance with law and to
pass
an
order
thereon.
Contempt
proceedings3 were initiated, in which on
22 November 2013 an order was passed
directing a decision in accordance with
the earlier order within two months,
failing which, it was stated, that the
competent authority would be liable to be
summoned and prosecuted after framing
charges. An order was passed by the third
respondent on 27 January 2014 declining
the claim of the appellant. The impugned
order records that, in the past, payment at
minimum of the pay scale had been
allowed to certain daily wage employees
based on a judgment of the Allahabad
High Court rendered in 2000. However, in
view of the subsequent decision of the
Supreme Court in Uma Devi (supra), it
was held that these daily wage employees
who have been appointed illegally could
not be given the benefit of the earlier
decision. Moreover, it was stated that the
State Government has not provided funds
to the University for payment at the
minimum of the pay scale and that the
University was unable to bear the
financial burden. This led to the filing of
the writ petition in which the learned
Single Judge has issued directions on 15
May 2014, directing that the appellants be
paid
atleast
the
minimum
wages
prescribed by the Government to such
daily wage employees.
3. The sole basis on which the
appellants claim payment at the minimum
of the pay scale, is an alleged claim of
parity with certain other daily wagers who
had succeeded in writ proceedings before
this Court. As the record before this Court
indicates, initially on 24 April 2000, an
order was passed by the learned Single
Judge in Writ Petition No.7942 of 1994,
directing the University to pay the
minimum of the pay scale admissible to
Class-III and Class-IV daily waged
workers. A special appeal4 was dismissed
on 10 May 2001. The Supreme Court
dismissed the Special Leave Petition on
10 December 2001. Following this,
certain orders were passed by the learned
Single Judges of this Court directing the
University to pay at the minimum of the
pay
scale
admissible
to
regular
employees. The appellants have annexed
to these proceedings, an order passed by
Rakesh Sharma, J in Santosh Kumar
Asthana and others Vs. State of U.P. and
another5.
4. On the other hand, in a special
appeal filed by the University, Chandra
Shekhar Azad University of Agriculture
and Technology Vs. Smt. Renu and
others6, a Division Bench of this Court in
an order dated 3 April 2013 observed that
until the State Government provided
funds to the University, the University
would be permitted to continue to pay
such wages as were now being paid to the
daily wage employees and in case funds
were provided by the State Government,
they would be paid the minimum scale of
regular employees. The University in the
present case passed an order on 27
January 2014, as noted earlier, recording
that (i) the position which obtained prior
to the decision of the Supreme Court in
Uma Devi (supra) where certain orders
have been passed provisionally by this
Court in 2000 is materially altered after
the decision of the Constitution Bench of
the Supreme Court; and (ii) the University
148
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
is unable to bear the financial burden in
the absence of funds being allocated by
the State Government and those cases
where the University was paying at the
minimum of the pay scale were situations
in which, following the earlier directions
and contempt proceedings, the University
had been constrained to pay at the
minimum of the pay scale. Those orders
would be binding inter-se between the
parties to those proceedings.
5. Essentially, what the Court must
deal with, as a matter of first principle, is
whether, on the position of laws as it
stands today, daily wage employees are
entitled to assert a right to claim wages at
the minimum of the pay scale. The
position, as it obtained prior to the
decision of the Constitution Bench of the
Supreme Court in Uma Devi (supra),
stands
modified
in
view
of
the
observations contained in paragraph 54 of
the judgment, to the following effect:-
"54. It is also clarified that those
decisions which run counter to the
principle settled in this decision, or in
which directions running counter to what
we have held herein, will stand denuded
of their status as precedents."
6. In paragraph 55 of the decision in
Uma
Devi
(supra),
the
following
directions were issued by the Supreme
Court referable to the powers of the
Supreme Court under Article 142 of the
Constitution.
"55...We are, therefore, of the view
that, at best, the Division Bench of the
High Court should have directed that
wages equal to the salary that is being
paid to regular employees be paid to these
daily-wage employees with effect from
the date of its judgment. Hence, that part
of the direction of the Division Bench is
modified and it is directed that these
daily-wage earners be paid wages equal to
the salary at the lowest grade of
employees
of
their
cadre
in
the
Commercial
Taxes
Department
in
government service, from the date of the
judgment of the Division Bench of the
High Court. Since, they are only dailywage earners, there would be no question
of other allowances being paid to them..."
7. Subsequently, in State of Punjab
Vs. Surjit Singh7, these directions in
paragraph 55 of the judgment in Uma
Devi (supra) were expressly held to
constitute directions referable to the
jurisdiction under Article 142 of the
Constitution.
The
Supreme
Court
observed as follows:-
"29. It is in the aforementioned
factual backdrop, this Court in exercise of
its jurisdiction under Article 142 of the
Constitution of India, directed: (Umadevi
case8, SCC p. 43, para 55)
"55.....Hence,
that
part
of
the
direction of the Division Bench is
modified and it is directed that these
daily-wage earners be paid wages equal to
the salary at the lowest grade of
employees
of
their
cadre
in
the
Commercial
Taxes
Department
in
government service, from the date of the
judgment of the Division Bench of the
High Court. Since, they are only dailywage earners, there would be no question
of other allowances being paid to them. In
view of our conclusion, that the courts are
not expected to issue directions for
making such persons permanent in
service, we set aside that part of the
direction of the High Court directing the
1 All] Ghanshyam Das Varshney Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
149
Government to consider their cases for
regularisation. We also notice that the
High Court has not adverted to the aspect
as to whether it was regularization or it
was giving permanency that was being
directed by the High Court. In such a
situation, the direction in that regard will
stand deleted and the appeals filed by the
State would stand allowed to that extent.
If sanctioned posts are vacant (they are
said to be vacant) the State will take
immediate steps for filling those posts by
a regular process of selection. But when
regular recruitment is undertaken, the
respondents in CAs Nos. 3595-612 and
those
in
the
Commercial
Taxes
Department similarly situated, will be
allowed to compete, waiving the age
restriction imposed for the recruitment
and giving some weightage for their
having been engaged for work in the
Department for a significant period of
time. That would be the extent of the
exercise of power by this Court under
Article 142 of the Constitution to do
justice to them.
30. We, therefore, do not see that any
law has been laid down in para 55 of the
judgement
in
Umadevi
(3)
case.
Directions were issued in view of the
limited controversy. As indicated, the
State's grievances were limited."
8. In a recent judgment of a Division
Bench of this Court in State of U.P. and
others Vs. Mahipal Singh and another8,
this position of law has been followed.
9. In this background and in view of
the clear position in law, it would not be
possible for this Court to accept the
contention of the appellants that they
should be allowed the minimum of the
pay scale merely on the basis of certain
directions which were issued in the past.
This Court must be governed by the
principle of law which has been laid down
in several judgments of the Supreme
Court noted above. As daily wage
employees, the appellants would be entitle
to receive minimum wages, as directed by
the learned Single Judge in the impugned
judgment. Their claim to receive salary
payable to regular employees of the
University at the minimum of the pay
scale would not be maintainable in law.
10. The University has observed that
the appellants were recruited without
following any procedure prescribed under
the law for recruitment. Moreover, the
University has also observed that it is
unable to bear the financial burden in the
absence of financial support from the State.
11. We see no reason to entertain the
special appeal since the judgment of the
learned Single Judge is in accordance
with the position in law as it now stands.
The special appeal is, accordingly,
dismissed. There shall be no order as to
costs.
--------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 20.02.2015
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE RAJES KUMAR, J.
THE HON'BLE ASHOK PAL SINGH, J.
Service Bench No. 428 of 2006
Ghanshyam Das Varshney ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors.
...Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Hemendra Pratap
Counsel for the Respondents: