STATE OF UTTARAKHAND Vs. ATOL SINGH
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
STATE OF UTTARAKHAND
Click here to view full judgement.
BARIN GHOSH, J. -
(1.) THERE has been 49 days delay in preferring the. appeal and,
accordingly, an application has been made for condonation of delay in
preferring the appeal. Though, time was granted to file objection to the
application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal, but no such
objection has been filed.
(2.) WE have considered the averments made In the application for condonation of delay in preferring the appeal and being satisfied with
the sufficiency of the reasons furnished, allow the same.
(3.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.
Appellants herein are not disputing that the respondent herein was engaged as a daily wage workman from April 1996 and is still
continuing as such workman. There appears to be no dispute . that
similarly placed workmen approached the Hon'ble -Allahabad High Court
seeking a mandamus to regularize their services. The Honble Allahabad
High Court in the leading case of Putti Lal issued a direction to
regularize the services of daily wagers and also to pay them minimum of
the pay scale of Group 'D employees. The State of Uttar Pradesh filed a
Special Leave Petition, which was registered as Civil Appeal No. 3634 of
1998 (State of Uttar Pradesh versus Putti Lal). The same was disposed of by an order dated 21st February, 2002. The Hon 'ble Supreme Court held
that when daily wage workmen were discharging similar duties as those of
regular employees, daily wage workmen are entitled to receive the minimum
pay scale on the principle of equal pay for equal work. The Hon 'ble
Supreme Court, at the time of parting, desired that appropriate steps
would also be taken for regulari -zation of such daily wage workmen. In
2003, the State of Uttarakhand took a decision and thereby provided that daily wage workmen, as that of the respondent, if commenced working as
daily wage workmen since prior to 1991 and are still continuing to
discharge the duties of daily wage workmen as on the date of making of
the said Government Order/Rules, steps will be, taken for their
regularization. In view of the said decision, thus, taken by the
Government of Uttarakhand, the Conservator of Forests issued a direction
and thereby provided that there shall be two fixed remunerations for
daily wage workmen, of which one will be equivalent to the minimum scale
of regular employees, which shall be paid to those daily wage workmen,
who are working since 1991 and who may be regularized under the 2003
Government Order/Rules and the remaining will be getting the lower one.
While taking the said step, the Conservator of Forests did not bother
even to look into the judgment of Horible Supreme Court rendered in the
case of Putti Lal. In that case, Honble Supreme Court pronounced that if
a daily wage workman is asked to discharge similar duties as of those
regular workmen, the daily wage workman is entitled to receive minimum of
the pay scale on the principle of. equal pay for equal work. It is not
the case of the Conservator of Forests, as depicted in the impugned
order, that he directed payment of the lower wage to those daily wage
workmen, who were not asked to discharge duties of regular workmen.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.