- (1.) Petitioner's claim for being regularized was considered and rejected by the respondents. This order was put to challenge in Writ Petition No. 8667 of 2016 which has been dismissed on 28.2.2017. However, following observations were made in the order:- "Having considered the matter in the light of the facts of the case, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned orders. The writ petition is dismissed. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that though the petitioner is still working but he is not being paid minimum pay scale. This aspect of the matter shall be examined by the competent authority.
(2.) It is therefore directed that if the petitioner prefers a fresh representation raising this issue with regard to payment of minimum pay scale/minimum wages, as the case may be, before the competent authority alongwith certified copy of this order within one month from today, the competent authority shall take a decision on the representation in accordance with law within a further period of three months." It is thereafter that petitioner's claim has been considered and rejected vide order impugned dated 15th June, 2017, which is challenged in this writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though petitioner's claim for regularization has not been accepted, yet as he has been continuing for the last nearly 30 years and, in such circumstances, denial of minimum of pay-scale would be in teeth of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Sabha Shanker Dube Vs. Divisional Forest Officer and others decided on 14.11.2018. Reliance has also been placed upon a judgment of this Court in Writ Petition No. 11964 of 2018 (Mohan Swaroop and another Vs. State of U.P. and others), which has been disposed of vide following orders passed on 17.11.2018:- "Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri Neeraj Tripathi, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Shri R.P. Dubey, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State - respondents. This petition, along with the connected petitions, raises a claim by petitioners, who are all working in the Forest Department of the State for the last many many years for being paid salary in minimum of pay scale admissible for the post, against which they are working. It appears that benefit of minimum of pay scale was granted to the petitioners without any allowances in light of the observations made in various previous adjudications of this Court, but, all of a sudden, a Government Order has been issued on 08.03.2018, which states that benefit of minimum of pay scale as per 7th Pay Commission report would be made available only to those who are regular employees and not to those who are engaged on temporary basis/casual/daily wage basis. This Court, after hearing counsel for the parties, had passed a detailed order on 16.08.2018 holding as under:- "Once the entitlement of the petitioners, to be paid minimum of pay scale admissible to a Class - IV employee, has been acknowledged by the respondents, it would be difficult to accept the contention of the respondents that minimum of pay scale, which is applicable now, would not be extended to them (the petitioners). What is relevant is the minimum of pay scale and not the Pay Commission reports; in as much as, Pay Commission reports are enforced for different periods depending upon the price index, etc. It is not in dispute that 7th Pay Commission report has been enforced in the State. The minimum of pay scale, as on date, would be the minimum of pay scale which is admissible to other similarly placed employees of the State carving out distinction for persons who are receiving salary in the minimum of pay scale, so as to deny them minimum of pay scale admissible to a similarly placed Government servant as on date, only on the ground that they are treated as daily wager, would be wholly irrational and violate Article 14 of the Constitution of India, apart from being violative of the directions issued by the Apex Court. Prima facie, the State would not be justified in denying minimum of pay scale to the petitioners at par with other similarly placed Government employee (except allowances, etc.) only because there is no specific order granting minimum of pay scale to the daily wagers. The denial of minimum of wages on the strength of Government Order dated 08.03.2018 is also found to be unsustainable in law. This interpretation, on part of the respondents, appears to be inconsistent with and in teeth of the directions issued by the Apex Court from time to time. Although learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel has referred to various orders passed by the Apex Court, but those judgments, apparently, will have no applicability in the facts of the present case; in as much as, a specific direction of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, with regard to employees of Forest Department (which has already been implemented by them), would continue to be applicable upon them, particularly, when the latest order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, inter se, parties arising out of the same contempt proceedings, reiterates the direction issued by the Apex Court in Putti Lal (supra).
(3.) In view of the above, it would be appropriate to extend one more opportunity to the respondents to examine their stand and to call upon the Additional Chief Secretary, Forest Department of the State of U.P. to clarify as to how the benefit of minimum of pay scale, which has been extended to these persons under the orders of the Apex Court, referred to above, could be withdrawn unilaterally by the State pursuant to the Government Orders impugned? The Officer shall also explain as to why the direction of Apex Court dated 02.02.2016 to deny salary to him and the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest be not enforced? The Officer concerned, before filing his reply, is expected to be conscious of the fact that the direction issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court is, otherwise, binding upon all the authorities by virtue of Article 141 of the Constitution of India. Let the required affidavit be filed by 31st of August, 2018. Put up this case, in the additional cause list, on 31.08.2018." Affidavits have been filed on behalf of the respondents disputing the continuance of the petitioner no. 1 (Shri Mohan Swaroop) since 1991. It is, however, not in issue that payment of salary in minimum of pay scale was granted to him in the year 2013 and he was receiving such benefit till the order impugned has been passed. ;