M.C. Tripathi, J. - (1.) HEARD Sri Satendra Singh, Advocate holding brief of Sri Suresh Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri Shiv Nath Singh, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4. Learned Standing Counsel has appeared for State -respondent No. 1.
(2.) BRIEF facts giving rise to the present writ petition are that the petitioner Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 6 are working from the year 1992; the petitioner No. 5 is working from the year 1993; the petitioner No. 8 is working from the year 1996; the petitioner No. 9 is working from the year 1999 and petitioner No. 7 is working from the year 2000 as daily wagers in Chandra Shekhar Azad University of Agricultural and Technology, Kanpur Nagar (in short, the University). Although, the petitioners have worked since the year 1992, but they were treated as daily wage employees and they were given daily rated remuneration from the respondent -University. Some similarly situated employees preferred a Writ Petition No. 37309 of 2000 (Navneet Kumar Yadav vs. State of U.P. & Ors.), for regularizing their services and for payment of salary equal to salary which is being paid to other similarly situated employees or regular employees. The said writ petition was disposed of on 4.4.2005 with following directions: - "............This writ is decided finally with the direction to the respondent No. 4 to consider the case of the petitioners for regularization in view of the judgment of learned Single Judge and will take appropriate action with the respondent No. 1 for sanction of fund for the purpose of the payment of minimum wages to the daily wagers within six weeks from the receipt of the order. The State Government is also directed to consider the requisition of the respondent No. 4 according to law. The State Government is also directed to consider the requisition of the respondent No. 4 according to law. The State Government respondent No. 1 is further directed to pass the appropriate order relating to receipt of fund within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of the requisition from the respondent No. 1. With this observation, this writ petition is disposed of." The petitioners have also preferred Writ Petition No. 15664 of 2007, which was disposed of by this Court on 06.02.2009 following the judgment and order dated 4.4.2005 passed in Writ Petition No. 37309 of 2000. When the respondent University did not comply with the order dated 06.02.2009, the petitioners were compelled to file a Contempt Petition No. 1821 of 2009, in which notices were issued to the respondents. In the meantime, the respondent -University had filed Special Appeal No. 633 of 2012 (Chandra Shekhar Azad University of Agriculture and Tech. vs. Smt. Laxaminiya and others), challenging the order dated 06.02.2009 passed in Writ Petition No. 15664 of 2007. The said special appeal was also dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court on 29.01.2013. For ready reference, the order dated 29.01.2013 is reproduced herein below: - "It appears from the impugned order dated 6.2.2009 passed by the learned Single Judge that he had heard the parties, which included the appellant, and there was no dispute set up at the time of argument that the case was not fully covered by the decision in the case of Navneet Kumar Yadav Vs. State of U.P. and others. On that basis the learned Single Judge disposed of the present writ petition by the impugned order in the same terms as the case of Navneet Kumar Yadav. Once a party contended that the controversy involved in the writ petition was fully covered by the judgment in the case of Navneet Kumar Yadav Vs. State of U.P., and no attempt was made by the appellant to dispute this proposition, and on that basis the judgment has been rendered by the learned Single Judge, it may be open to the appellant to file a review petition before the learned Single Judge disputing his express or implied concession even on the law point, but it is not open to canvas in appeal that such concession has not been made, according to the law settled by the Supreme Court. Therefore, leaving that option of review open, this appeal is dismissed."
(3.) DESPITE the order passed by the learned Single Judge and the order passed by the Division Bench in Special Appeal, the answering respondents had not complied with the same. Although, when the Contempt Application No. 1821 of 2009 was connected with Contempt Application No. 5162 of 2011, in the said case, the Principal Secretary (Agricultural), Government of U.P. was directed to appear in person. Thereafter, Sri Devasheesh Panda, the then Principal Secretary had passed an order dated 14.12.2013 to comply with the orders passed in Writ Court, Special Court and Contempt Court. In compliance of the orders passed by Writ Court, Special Court and Contempt Court, the respondent -University have passed an order on 03.01.2014, by which the respondents authority have given equal pay for equal work to the petitioners. When the petitioners' case was allowed by Writ Court on 06.02.2009, they approached before the respondent -University for getting the arrears of salary since February 2000 but the respondents authority have not made any efforts in the said matter.;