DY.DIRECTOR,SOCIAL FORESTRY DIVN.& ANR Vs. LAKSHMI CHANDRA
Supreme Court of India (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)
Appeal (Civil), 879-883 of 2016, Judgment Date: Feb 02, 2016
NON-REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NOs. 879-883 OF 2016
[@SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) 28317-28321 OF 2010]
DY.DIRECTOR, SOCIAL FORESTRY DIVN.& ANR Appellant (s)
VERSUS
LAKSHMI CHANDRA Respondent(s)
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NOs. 884-85 OF 2016
[ @ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) 27593-27594 OF 2010 ]
WITH
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) 26571-26572 OF 2010
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) 26664-26665 OF 2010
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) 27506-27507 OF 2010
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) 27578-27579 OF 2010
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) 1340 OF 2011
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) 1342 OF 2011
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) 1343 OF 2011
J U D G M E N T
KURIAN, J.
Civil Appeal Nos. 884-85 of 2016 [@ SLP (C) 27593-27594 of 2010]
1. Leave granted.
2. The appellants are before this Court, aggrieved by the proceedings
for contempt initiated against them. The disputes herein are in a very
narrow compass, regarding the payment of minimum of the pay-scale to the
daily wagers working in the Forest Department in Group-D posts.
3. In the contempt application, being Civil Misc. Contempt Petition No.
2465 of 2004, by order dated 01.07.2010, the High Court passed the
following order:-
"It is not the case of the opposite parties that the applicants are not
working in the Forest Department at different places after the judgments of
this Court and the Apex Court. It is admitted that the applicants are
working as daily wagers. Thus, once this Court had issued directions to
pay all the daily rated workers the minium of the pay scale but without
allowances and other benefits, the applicants would be entitled to minimum
of the pay scale so long they continue to work as daily rated workers in
the Forest Department. The opposite parties by not paying the minimum of
the pay scale to all the daily rated workers working in the Forest
Department on the cut off date and thereafter have thus violated/disobeyed
the directions of this Court contained in the judgments of the learned
Single Judge and the Division Bench in the case of Putti Lal (supra). In
view of discussions made above, the Court is prima facie satisfied that
there has been wilful and deliberate disobedience /non-compliance on the
part of the opposite parties of the directions of this Court as contained
in the judgments of the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench of this
Court in the case of Putti Lal (supra), as modified by the Apex Court."
4. The High Court had, in fact, directed the payment in terms of an
order passed by this Court in Civil Appeal No. 3634 of 1998 dated
21.02.2002 titled as State of U.P. & Ors. Vs. Putti Lal reported in (2006)
9 SCC 337, in which this Court had held :-
"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 the 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."
5. It is seen from the records of the contempt petition that the
Principal Chief Conservator of Forests of the State had filed an affidavit
before the High Court to the effect that necessary instructions had been
issued to all the officers concerned to implement the directions referred
to above with regard to payment of minimum of the pay-scale to the daily
wagers.
6. We direct the Principal Secretary to the Department of Forests, U.P.
and the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, U.P. to file separate
affidavits before the High Court on the implementation of the orders
referred to above. In case, the workmen have not been paid the amounts as
per the orders, they shall see that wages are paid in terms of the orders
within a period of one month from today and the affidavit in that regard
shall be filed before the High Court within two weeks thereafter.
7. In case, the orders are not implemented, the Principal Secretary to
the Department of Forests and the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests
shall not be eligible to draw their salaries from the month of April, 2016,
without permission from the High Court.
8. Subject to the above directions, these civil appeals are disposed of
with no orders as to costs. Pending interlocutory applications, if any,
are disposed of.
Civil Appeal Nos. 879-883 of 2016 [@ Special Leave Petition (C) Nos. 28317-
28321 of 2010]
1. Leave granted.
2. The dispute essentially pertains to the regularisation of the daily
wagers in the Forest Department of the State of U.P. and payment of minimum
of the pay-scale being received by their counterparts in the Government
without any other allowances or increment so long as the workmen continued
as daily wagers. In the decision rendered by this Court in Putti Lal
(supra), this Court gave a quietus to both the disputes by permitting the
State to take up the case of the daily wagers for regularisation in terms
of the rules framed by the State viz. "The U.P. Regularisation of Daily
Wages (Appointment on Group D Posts) Rules, 2001". As far as the payment
of minimum of pay-scale also, this Court held that the daily wagers should
be paid the minimum of the pay-scale being received by their counterparts
in the Government, without any other allowances or increment, so long as
they continued as daily wagers.
3. The respondent approached the High Court complaining that no
meaningful steps have been taken for regularisation in terms of the rules
referred to above despite the High Court issuing a direction in Civil Misc.
Writ Petition No. 43443 of 2004, decided on 23.10.2008.
4. The learned Single Judge, taking cognizance of the fact that despite
the direction issued by this Court and the High Court, the State and their
machinery had not been putting the house in order, directed the officers
concerned to be present before the Court to explain the position.
Accordingly, on 03.12.2009, the Principal Secretary, Department of Forests
and the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, who were present before the
learned Single Judge, submitted that steps would be taken to draw an
accurate eligibility and seniority list in all the Divisions in terms of
the Rules referred to above for the purpose of regularisation. Despite
such an undertaking given before the Court in person and recorded by the
Court, apparantly no meaningful steps were taken and therefore, the Court
proceeded to the next stage of framing charges. The matter was taken in an
intra-court appeal, which was also dismissed and thus, they are before this
Court.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants has submitted that
during the pendency of these proceedings before the Court and the High
Court, in all the 70 Divisions of the Forest Department, the eligibility
and seniority list has been prepared and submitted before the High Court.
Mr. Prashant Bhushan, learned counsel appearing for some of the workmen,
has submitted that the lists which were submitted, were not prepared in
accordance with the Rules and quite a few bogus names were also inserted in
the list. We do not think it fit for us to go into all these aspects. Now
that the lists have been prepared and presented before the Court, we
request the High Court to take into consideration all the subsequent
developments and proceed accordingly so as to reach a logical conclusion in
terms of the orders passed by this Court and the High Court with regard to
regularisation as well as the payment of minium of pay-scale to the daily
wagers.
6. The needful may be done expeditiously and at any rate within three
months from today. The parties will appear before the High Court on
17.02.2016. Needless to say, the steps proposed in the impugned order for
framing charges will be deferred and reconsidered.
7. The Registry is directed to forward a copy of this Judgment to the
Registrar General of the High Court forthwith for posting of the case.
8. In view of the above, these civil appeals are disposed of with no
order as to costs. Pending interlocutory applications, if any, are
disposed of.
Special Leave Petition (C) 26571-26572 OF 2010, Special Leave Petition (C)
26664-26665 OF 2010, Special Leave Petition (C) 27506-27507 OF 2010,
Special Leave Petition (C) 27578-27579 OF 2010, Special Leave Petition (C)
1340 OF 2011, Special Leave Petition (C) 1342 OF 2011, Special Leave
Petition (C) 1343 OF 2011
1. In view of the Judgment passed in Civil Appeal Nos. 879-883 of 2016
(@SLP (C) Nos. 28317-28321 of 2010), no further orders are required to be
passed in these Special Leave Petitions and these are also disposed of in
terms of the directions issued above.
2. Pending interlocutory applications, if any, are disposed of.
.......................J.
[ KURIAN JOSEPH ]
.......................J.
[ ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN ]
New Delhi;
February 02, 2016.
For the Latest Updates
Join Now