- (1.) Sri Pankaj Srivastava and Sri Sri S.K. Vidyarthi have appeared for the applicants and Sri Shashi Nandan, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Sri Neeraj Upadhya, Additional Chief Standing Counsel, have appeared for the contemnor-opposite parties.
(2.) These bunch of contempt petitions broadly raise two issues. The first issue is with regards to the payment of minimum of the pay-scale to daily rated workers in the forest department of the Government of U.P. and the second issue relates to the manner in which the claim of regularization of these daily rated workers has been dealt with by the State Authorities who were required to take a decision on the claim for regularization of the daily rated workers in accordance with the U.P. Regularization of Daily-Wages Appointments on Group-D Post Rules, 2001.
(3.) In respect of the first issue that is with regards to payment of minimum of the pay-scale to the daily rated workers, an order was passed on 01.07.2010 in the lead contempt petition No.2465 of 2004 after placing reliance on certain observations made by the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.3634 of 1998 (State of U.P. And others Vs. Putti Lal, 2006 9 SCC 337 dated 21.01.2002). The relevant observation of the Apex Court is being reproduced herein below:- "In several cases, this Court applying the principle of equal pay for equal work has held that a daily-wager, if he is discharging the similar duties as those in the regular employment of the Government, should at least be entitled to receive the minimum of the pay scale though he might not be entitled to any increment or any other allowance that is permissible to his counter part in the Government. In our opinion that would be correct position and we, therefore, direct that these daily-wagers would be entitled to draw at the minimum of the pay scale being received by their counter part in the Government and would not be entitled to any other allowances or increment so long as they continue as daily-wager. The question of their regular absorption will obviously be dealt with in accordance with the statutory rule already referred to.";