- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Vishnath And Others v. State Of Uttar Pradesh And Others
Structured Summary of the Opinion
Factual and Procedural Background
Twenty-two petitioners, who are daily-wage workers employed in the High Court, together with the Class IV Employees' Association, High Court, Allahabad, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. They sought a writ of mandamus directing the respondents (including the State of Uttar Pradesh, the Chief Justice of the High Court, the Registrar of the High Court, and the Joint Secretary, Nyaya Vibhag) to pay the petitioners salaries in accordance with the pay-scales applicable to various class IV posts and to revise their daily-wage rates so as to be consistent with rates paid to daily labourers in other State departments.
The petitioners had worked for a number of years as daily-wagers performing duties such as peon, coolie, mali, sweeper, chaukidar and driver, and some were assigned to the residences of Judges after a 1975 State provision. They alleged that they performed the same duties as regular class IV employees but were being paid substantially less (noted to be Rs. 6.17 per day or Rs. 185 per month because holidays were unpaid). They also pointed to daily labourers in other departments (Director of Education and Government Press) being paid Rs. 10 per day.
The State and the High Court contested the petition. The State contended that daily-wagers are not regular employees and therefore not entitled to the same wages, and also asserted that the nature of work elsewhere differed. The counter-affidavit did not specify differences in duties, and the allegation regarding Rs. 10 per day paid in other departments was not denied in the record.
The Court heard arguments, referred to pertinent Supreme Court decisions, and delivered judgment ordering equalization of pay-scales for the petitioners according to the nature of duties they discharged, with specified scales and retrospective effect from the date of filing of the writ petition; it also awarded costs.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether casual or daily-wage workers performing the same duties and functions as regular class IV employees are entitled to receive the same salary and allowances as those class IV employees.
- Whether the lack of formal sanction of posts for daily-wage workers employed on the High Court establishment affects their entitlement to be paid the salary and allowances comparable to class IV employees.
Arguments of the Parties
Petitioners' Arguments
- The petitioners, who have been working for years as daily-wage workers, perform duties identical or substantially similar to those performed by regular class IV employees and therefore should be paid the same salary and allowances applicable to class IV posts.
- They are receiving a much lower rate (stated in the petition as Rs. 6.17 per day, resulting in Rs. 185 per month) and are denied pay for holidays, producing discriminatory treatment compared with class IV employees and with daily labourers in other departments who receive higher daily rates (alleged Rs. 10 per day).
- They sought revision of rates and equivalence of pay to remove discrimination and to align with pay in other government departments for similar work.
Respondents' (State / High Court) Arguments
- The State contended that daily-wagers are not regular employees and therefore are not entitled to the same wages and conditions as regular class IV employees.
- The State asserted that daily labourers in other departments perform a different nature of work compared to the petitioners, implying lack of comparability.
- The State further argued that the posts of daily-wagers on the High Court establishment were not sanctioned by the State Government, and therefore the petitioners could not be granted relief based on unsanctioned posts.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Dhirendra Chamoli v. State of Uttar Pradesh [1986 — I L.L.N. 293] | Holds that daily-wage or casual workers performing the same duties as class IV employees are entitled to the same salary and service conditions; rejects the defence that employees' acceptance of exploitative daily wages precludes an equality claim under Article 14. | The court relied on this decision to reject the State's argument that petitioners' prior acceptance of daily wages or lack of sanctioned posts precluded their entitlement; the court applied the principle of "equal pay for work of equal value" and directed parity of pay. |
| Suresh Singh v. Engineer-in-Chief, Central Public Works Department [Writ Petitions Nos. 59, 60 and 563 to 570 of 1983] | Reaffirmed and applied the Dhirendra Chamoli principle to require the Central Government to pay casual and daily-wagers the same salary and allowances as regular class IV employees in the Public Works Department. | The court treated this decision as further support for the proposition that daily-wagers performing the same duties are entitled to the same pay, and followed its direction when granting relief to the petitioners in the present case. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court proceeded by examining the factual allegations and the State's contested contentions, then applied authoritative Supreme Court precedent to the facts on record:
- Comparability of Duties: The Court noted petitioners performed duties similar to class IV employees (peon, farresh, mali, sweeper, coolie, chaukidar, driver, etc.) and observed that the State's counter-affidavit did not specify or demonstrate any material difference in the nature of work performed by daily-wagers and class IV employees in other departments. The allegation that other departments paid Rs. 10 per day was not denied, strengthening the claim of unequal treatment.
- Precedent Application: The Court relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Dhirendra Chamoli, which rejected the argument that acceptance of daily wages or the exploitative nature of the contract barred an equality claim. The Court quoted the Supreme Court's reasoning that Article 14 embodies the principle of "equal pay for work of equal value" and that a welfare State cannot permit exploitation through this defence.
- Supporting Authority: The Court cited Suresh Singh, where the Supreme Court had again directed parity of pay between casual/daily-wagers and regular class IV employees in the Public Works Department, reinforcing the legal rule applied here.
- Sanction of Posts: The Court addressed the State's contention that the posts were not sanctioned. It found that the lack of formal sanction does not affect the entitlement of persons who actually perform duties equivalent to class IV employees, and noted that the Registrar had sought sanction from the State government as far back as 29 May 1980. The Court also relied on the Supreme Court's rejection of the "unsanctioned post" defence in prior authorities.
- Remedial Determination: The Court concluded that daily-wage labourers performing the same duties are entitled to the same salary/scales and set out specific pay scales to be applied according to the type of duties performed. It further provided for retrospective or prospective application depending on whether the person was a petitioner at the time of filing or was employed subsequently.
- Costs and Procedure: The Court awarded costs to the petitioners and explained circumstances of adjournment and later delivery of judgment due to a judge's elevation to the Supreme Court and delivery at that judge's residence with prior permission.
Holding and Implications
HOLDING: The petition is allowed. The Court directed the State Government to pay salary and allowances to the petitioners equal to the scales applicable to class IV employees where the daily-wage workers discharge the same duties.
Direct Consequences for the Parties:
- Daily-wage labourers discharging functions of peon, farrash, coolie, sweeper, bhishti, mali, fireman, liftman, helper and chaukidar will be paid in the scale of Rs. 305–390.
- Bundle lifters and Daftari will be paid in the scale of Rs. 315–440.
- Those required to work as drivers or electricians will be paid in the scale of Rs. 330–495.
- Persons assigned to the residence of Judges are at least entitled to be paid in the scale of Rs. 306–390 (the opinion specifies this minimum for residence-assigned workers).
- Payment is to be made with effect from the date of filing of the writ petition for the petitioners; for persons employed subsequently, from the date they were assigned duties.
- The petitioners are awarded costs of Rs. 500.
Broader Implications: The Court's ruling is an application of existing precedents of the Supreme Court (Dhirendra Chamoli and Suresh Singh) requiring equal pay for daily-wage workers performing the same duties as regular class IV employees. The judgment enforces that principle in the High Court establishment context and rejects procedural defences (such as non-sanction of posts or prior acceptance of daily wages) as defeating substantive entitlement. The opinion does not purport to create a novel legal principle but applies binding Supreme Court authority to the facts presented.
Note: All statements in this summary derive solely from the text of the provided opinion; no facts or interpretations beyond the opinion have been introduced.
Singh, J.:— The twenty-two petitioners, who are daily-wage workers in the High Court, along with Class IV Employees' Association, High Court, Allahabad, have approached this Court by means of this petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution, for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents which include the State of Uttar Pradesh, the Chief Justice, High Court, and the Registrar of the High Court, and the Joint Secretary of the Government of Uttar Pradesh, Nyaya Vibhag, to pay the petitioners' salary as admissible in accordance with the pay-scales of various posts and duties of class IV employees. The petitioners have further claimed relief for the revision of rates of their daily-wages to make it consistent with the amount paid to the daily labourers working in other departments of the Government.
2. Petitioners 1 to 22 have been working in the High Court for a number of years as daily wagers. Some of them have been assigned to work at the residence of the Judges of this Court after the State made a provision to that effect in 1975, while others have been working in the High Court by performing the duties of peon, coolie, mali, sweeper, chaukidar and driver, etc. Although the daily wagers perform duties similar to those performed by members of class IV service but they are not being paid the salary or wages which is paid to the members of class IV service. The daily wagers are being paid wages at the rate of Rs. 6.17 per day. They are denied wages for holidays including Sundays, second Saturdays and thus at the end of the month they are paid at the rate of Rs. 185 per month. The petitioners grievance is that although they perform same duties and functions as are performed by peons, farresh, mali, coolie, sweeper, driver and chaukidar, etc., who are being paid salary in the grade of Rs. 305-390, being the lowest grade prescribed for class IV post. The petitioners have further submitted that daily wage labourers working in other departments of the State Government, namely, Director of Education and the Government Press are being paid at the rate of Rs. 10 per day, but the petitioners who are rendering same kind of service are being discriminated and are being paid at a lower rate.
3. The petition is contested by the State of Uttar Pradesh as well as by the High Court. On behalf of the State Government, it is asserted that the petitioners who are daily wagers are not entitled to the same wages which are being paid to other class IV employees as they are not regular employees and they have no right to get the same wages which are being paid to regular class IV employees. It is further asserted that the daily labourers working in other departments of the Government including the Office of the Director of Education and the Government Press, discharge different nature of work than the petitioners. The counter-affidavit, however, does not disclose the difference in the nature of the work and duties performed by them, nor the details of any difference have been pointed out. It is noteworthy that the assertion that daily labourers working in the Education Department and the Government Press are being paid at the rate of Rs. 10 per day, has not been denied. It is thus clear that the petitioners who are working as daily labourers and performing the duties of peon, mali, sweeper, coolie, farresh and chaukidar, etc., are not being paid the same wages which are being paid to similar employees working in other departments.
4. The precise question as to whether the casual workers on daily wages doing the same work as class IV employees are entitled to the same salary and wages which are being paid to class IV employees was considered by the Supreme Court in Dhirendra Chamoli v. State of Uttar Pradesh [1986—I L.L.N 293]. In that case, also a similar question arose and the defence taken on behalf of the respondents before the Supreme Court was almost similar, it was further asserted before the Supreme Court that the daily wagers who took employment knew it fully well that they will be paid only daily wages and, therefore, they cannot claim anything more, The Supreme Court repelled the contention in the following words in para.??? at page 294 of 1986—I L.L.N:
“… This argument lies ill in the mouth of Central Govern meat for it is an all too familiar argument with the exploiting class and a welfare State committed to a socialist pattern of society cannot be permitted to advance such an argument. It must be remembered that in this country where there is so much unemployment, the choice for the majority of people is to starve or to take employment on whatever exploitative terms are offered by the employer. The fact that these employees accepted employment with full knowledge that they will be paid only daily wages and they will not get the same salary and conditions of service as other class IV employees, cannot provide an escape to the Central Government to avoid the mandate of equality enshrined in Art. 14 of the Constitution. The article declares that there shall be equality before law and equal protection of the law and implicit in it is the further principle that there be equal pay for work of equal value. These employees who are in the service of the different Nehru Yuvak Kendras in the country and who are admittedly performing the same duties as class IV employees, must therefore, get the same salary and conditions of service as class IV employees …”
5. On the aforesaid observations, the Supreme Court allowed the writ petition and directed the Central Government and the State of Uttar Pradesh to accord, to the petitioners before it, the same salary and conditions of service as were being given to class IV employees. The State of Uttar Pradesh was a party to the petition and the judgment was given in August 1985, but it appears that in spite of the Supreme Court judgment the State Government has not taken steps to equate the wages of daily wagers working in the High Court at par with the salary and allowances of permanent class IV employees. In Suresh Singh v. Engineer in-Chief, Central Public Works Department [Writ Petitions Nos. 59, 60 and 563 to 570 of 1983], the Supreme Court again considered this question and following the decisions in Dhirendra Chamoli case [1986-I L.L.N 293] (vide supra), issued direction to the central Government to pay the same salary and allowances to casual and daily wagers in the Public Works Department as prescribed for regular class IV employees. In view of the aforesaid two judgments of the Supreme Court, there is no doubt; that the daily wagers performing the same duties and functions as are being preformed by regular class IV employees are entitled to the same salary and allowances. It is not open to the Government to practice discrimination by paying lower wages to the daily wagers. The petitioners are no doubt daily-wage workers and have no security of tenure of their service but since they are performing the same-duties and functions as are being carried out by regular class IV employees of the High Court, they are entitled to the same salary and allowances which are being paid to class IV employees.
6. The scale of pay which will be paid to the daily labourers will be commensurate with the nature of duties which are being performed by them. For example, if a daily wage labourer is discharging the functions of peon, farrash, coolie. Sweeper, bhishti, mali fireman, liftman, driver, electrician, Helper, bundle lifter, chaukidar, etc. The will be assigned the scale of Rs. 303-390. The daily wage labourer discharging the functions of bundle lifter or daftari, etc., will be assigned the scale of Rs. 315-440.
7. On behalf of the State Government, it was urged that the post of daily wagers working on the establishment of the High Court-have not been sanctioned by the State Government and as such they are not entitled to any relief from this Court. The contention of the respondents that the daily labourers employed on the establishment of the High Court are beyond the sanction permitted by the State Government is not correct perspective of the situation. This defence ceases to have any meaning in reference to time. The State cannot be permitted not to act and then contend that its permission has not been taken. Almost six years ago, the Registrar, High Court, wrote to the Joint Secretary, Mate of Uttar Pradesh, Department of Justice (High Court), Lucknow, by his letter of 29 May 1980; a copy of which was endorsed to the Accountant-General, Uttar Pradesh, in response to the latter's communication, dated 15 April 1980. In this communication the Registrar, High Court, placed before the State Government the actual strength of the daily labourers employed. The Registrar, High Court, sought the sanction of the State Government for these posts. The exercise in seeking sanction had thus been set in motion, as stated above, almost six years ago. It is thus difficult to accept the contention of the State respondents that the entire strength of the daily labourers has not been sanctioned or that the matter is under consideration.
8. The State Government's defence that the posts of daily wagers have not been sanctioned for the establishment of the High Court does not affect the question raised by the petitioners. The petitioners and other daily-wage workers are performing duties and functions similar to those performed by regular class IV employees and as such they are entitled to same salary and allowance irrespective of the fact that the post is sanctioned or not. A similar argument as raised in the present petition, was submitted before the Supreme Court in Dhirendra Chamolt case of 1986—I L.L.N 293 (vide supra), but the Supreme Court rejected the same holding that it makes no difference whether the petitioners were appointed in sanctioned posts or not. So long as they have been performing the same duties they are entitled to receive the same salary applicable to class IV employees. In this view, the respondents' contention that the posts on which some of the daily labourers have been working, have not been sanctioned, is not relevant and material for the purpose of the present petition. Since the petitioners have been performing the same duties, they must receive the same salary and conditions of service at applicable to class IV employees.
9. We accordingly allow the petition and direct the State Government to pay salary and allowances to the petitioner as below.
10. Daily-wage labourers discharging the functions of peon, farrash, coolie, sweeper, bhishti, mali, fireman, liftman, helper and chaukidar, etc., in the scale of Rs. 305-390, and bundle lifters and Daftari will be paid in the scale of Rs, 315- 440. Those required to work as drivers or electricians, etc., in the scale of Rs. 330-495. Others assigned to the residence of Judges, are at least entitled to be paid the scale of Rs. 306-390 and shall be paid in that scale. It is made clear that the petitioners and other daily-wage labourers will be paid according of he aforesaid directions with effect from the date of the filing of the writ petition. Those who may have been employed subsequently, from the date they have been assigned duties.
11. The petitioners are also entitled to costs of Rs. 500.
12. Arguments in this case were heard at length in the Court and 10 March 1986, was fixed for delivary of judgment. The judgment was ready for delivery as scheduled but since one of us (Hon. K.N Singh, J) is leaving for Delhi on account of his levation to the Supreme Court the case was taken up for delivery of judgment today with the prior permission of the Acting Chief Justice after informing the counsel for parties. The judgment has been delivered today at the residency of K.N Singh, J., in the presence of petitioners' counsel and the Standing Counsel.
Alert