- (1.) Petitioner has preferred this writ petition for a Writ of Mandamus or direction upon the respondents to pay him minimum wages and admissible allowances from the date of his initial appointment. The basic facts relevant to the issue in question may be stated as follows: The petitioner was appointed as a waterman by the Superintendent of Police, Rampur. A copy of the appointment letter has been placed by the petitioner on record as Annexure-1 to the writ petition. It is mentioned in the appointment letter that his appointment has been made against the post which fell vacant on account of resignation of a waterman, Chhotey Lal. The salary of the petitioner is mentioned as Rs. 90/- per month on consolidated basis. The petitioner accepted the said appointment. His duty was for serving water to the persons who were put in the lock up of the Collectorate at Rampur. It was also his duty to open and close the said lock up every day. Dissatisfied with the pitiable condition of service, he made a application to the District Magistrate on 8th September, 1993 in Janata Kutchery for a direction upon the concerned authority to pay him at least minimum wages prescribed by the State Government. When his representation did not find favour from the District Magistrate, he made a representation before the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Rampur for the same relief. In response thereto, the Assistant Labour Commissioner issued a communication dated 27th October, 1993 asking the petitioner to produce the appointment letter and other documents before him. There was recital in the said communication that if his appointment was found to be made under the Rules of the Government, then no action would be possible at his end. The said communication has been placed by the petitioner on record as Annexure-3 to the writ petition.
(2.) The petitioner, in reply thereto, produced all papers by way of a representation dated 28.10.1993, however, it is stated that the Assistant Labour Commissioner did not pass any order thereon. Having no option left, the petitioner preferred this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. While entertaining this writ petition, no interim protection was granted to the petitioner and he is waiting patiently for the last seventeen years.
(3.) A counter-affidavit has been filed by the respondents. The stand taken therein is that the appointment of the petitioner was on casual basis. In the counter-affidavit, it has not been denied that the petitioner was appointed against the post of Chotey Lal. It has also not been denied that he is working regularly as a waterman and discharging his duties as such. No reason has been mentioned in the counter-affidavit as to why the petitioner has not been paid minimum wages fixed by the State Government.;