G. M. LODHA, J. - (1.) WHETHER we are entering twenty first century via seventeenth century? WHETHER this shameful stigma of exploitation of a woman employee by payment of Rs. 1/- per day as salary and wages in 1987 when the real worth of Rs. 1/- is. 10 paise only may be less, deserves a shameful mention for beating all record of human exploitation in Guinea's Book of World Records? These are the pivotal questions in this lady peon's tragic tale of woe, suffering, miseries and nerve breaking, society rocking, heart rending, justice shocking long drawn fight of more than three decades for getting the minimum wages and the salary statutorily fixed in the pay scales and the revised pay scales from time to time for a peon. Gendi Devi's case of social economic exploitation is only one out of thousands and lace who suffer unnoticed and can never enter the doors of Court of Justice and thereby suffer injustice unlimited.
(2.) AT the very outset of the hearing when Mr. Paras Kuhad learned counsel for the unsuccessful plaintiff Smt. Gendi Devi made a revelation that the plaintiff who is an employee of Zila Parishad, Tonk from 1954 was being paid Rs. 30/- per month only, I was shocked and surprised that even this can happen after coming into force of the Constitution and amendment of the Constitution by 42nd amendment introducing socialism in the preamble. To perpetuate the injustice by compelling a lady to work for a month for Rs. 30/-per month when even unskilled labour minimum wages have been fixed at Rs. 11/- per day appears to be outrageous and injustice breaking all the records of exploitation. Even the slaves and bonded labours get more than this and the allowances as for a day for a majority of the employees in class II and above ranges from Rs. 20/- to Rs. 100/ -. That the judiciary would put a seal over such gross outrageous injustice by reversing the decree of the Munsif is heart rending, nerve breaking, society rocking and judicial conscience shocking. The civilised word would certainly laugh at such hair splitting interpretation of the lower court reminding one of Shakespear's Merchant of Venice. The misfortune is that even judicial officers forgot that in Merchant of Venice is theory, a logical argument was advanced for protecting injustice. Taking some-result, the judicial officer had adopted it for perpetuating injustice. And now the traditional facts. Mst. Gaindi Devi was appointed in Government Primary Girls School at Niwai of Tonk District at a salary of Rs. 30/- p. m in the year 1954. The institution of the District Board which was managing these schools underwent a radical change on the introduction of Panchayat Raj in Rajasthan as pioneer in India when in 1959 Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads were formed and the institution of the District Board was abolished and Zija Parishads took over by statutory transformation. There was revision of the pay scales of class IV employees a number of times as per the increase of dearness in prices and setting up of various commissions, recommendations of which were accepted by the Government. In 1959 the Panchayat Samiti, Niwai took over the school and the plaintiff became class IV employee in the scale of pay provided therein, but the actual payment was not increased and it continued to be Rs. 30/- p. m. on the pretext that she was to get Rs. 30/- p. m. throughout her life because she was a fixed pay employee without appreciating that the statutory revision is to be applied to all in view of the increase in price index and revision of pay scales.
(3.) THE plaintiff's case is that the pay scales were revised again and again after 1959, 1961, 1968 and 1976, but the plaintiff was not given any increased salary in these pay scales. As a class IV, uneducated, poor, down trodden, disadvantageous employees, she fought by making representations to the functionaries of the Panchayat Samiti, Director, Primary Education Board, Zila Parishad Tonk and officers of the Community Development Department, and all agreed and recommended her case as most just and genuine. There was prolonged correspondence as per the red tapism which continued up to 1976 when she was assured that Collector has also recommended her case and she would soon get the increased salary. But to her misfortune the internal correspondence was struck up and there was complete blockade when the Panchayat Samiti insisted on getting a post of class IV employee from the Development Department. Ultimately, her prayer was refused with the result that she came to the forum of judiciary, the only ray of hope against the administrative inaction and dereliction of duty. It is unfortunate that for a class IV employee and that too of a weaker section and weaker sex of the society, all the departments continued correspondence for two decades, as if they were finalising the third or fourth year plan of the country and came back to square No. 1 by refusing to grant salary on the pretext that there is no post and she is a fixed remuneration employee. ;