State Of Up And 3 Others vs Ramesh
- Court
- Allahabad High Court
A.F.R.
Reserved on : 07.10.2026
Delivered on : 27.10.2026
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 1156 of 2026
State of UP and 3 others
…..Appellant(s)
Versus
Ramesh
…..Respondent(s)
Counsel for Appellant(s) : C.S.C., Pradeepta Kumar Shahi,
S.C.
Counsel for Respondent(s) : Ramendra Kumar Shukla
Along with :
Special Appeal No. 1157 of 2026: ( State of UP and 2 others v. Umesh)
Court No. - 40
HON'BLE SARAL SRIVASTAVA, J.
HON'BLE SUDHANSHU CHAUHAN, J.
(Delivered by Hon’ble Sudhanshu Chauhan, J.)
1. Heard Shri M.C. Chaturvedi, Additional Advocate General
appearing for Principal Secretary (Law), Government of U.P., Lucknow,
Shri Kartikeya Saran, Additional Advocate General assisted by Shri P.K.
Shahi, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel and Shri Rajesh
Kumar Pal, learned Standing Counsel for appellants and Shri Ramendra
Kumar Shukla and Shri Pankaj Srivastava, learned counsel for the
respondents.
2. The two Special Appeals arise out of similar facts and
circumstances and similarly structured impugned judgments and orders.
Hence, the hearing of the two Special Appeals were conducted together
2
SPLA No. - 1156 of 2026
and the Special Appeal No. 1156 of 2026 was made the leading case.
Thus, under these circumstances and for the sake of convenience the two
special appeals are being decided by this common judgment and the
facts are being culled out from the Special Appeal No. 1156 of 2026
(State of U.P. and others Vs. Ramesh).
3. The present Special Appeal arises out of judgment and order dated
08.07.2026 passed by learned Single Judge in Writ A No. 8863 of 2026
(Ramesh v. State of U.P. and others) wherein the learned Single Judge
while placing reliance upon the judgment and order dated 07.01.2025
passed by this Court in Writ A No. 15530 of 2026 (Keshav Prasad v.
State of U.P. and others) had directed the appellants to pay the minimum
pay admissible to a regular class IV employee, working in the Forest
Department on month to month basis, with a rider that the petitioner-
respondent shall not be entitled to any allowances or increments.
4. The facts involved in the present controversy in brief are that the
petitioner-respondent had filed Writ A No. 8863 of 2026 claiming that
the petitioner has continuously been working on the post of Chowkidar/
Watcher/ Prabhari since July, 2009 in Divisional Forest Office, Obra,
Forest Division Obra, District Sonebhadra, however, the petitioner was
being paid an amount of Rs. 6162/- per month instead of minimum pay
scale of class IV employee in the Forest Department, which is Rs.
18,000 per month, in the light of the judgments of the Apex Court.
5. Hence, the petitioner had filed the writ petition seeking the
following reliefs:
“I. Issue a writ order of direction in the nature of mandamus commanding to
the respondents to pay minimum of the pay scale of Rs. 18,000/- per month
of Class-IV to the petitioner on which he is working in view of Hon’ble
Supreme Court’s Judgment dated 21.02.2002 state of U.P. and others Vs.
Putti Lal reported in (2002) Vol. (2) U.P.L.O.B.E.C. Page 1595 and Judgment
dated 14.11.2018 passed by Hon’ble Supreme court in Civil Appeal no.
10956 of 2018 Sabha Shankar Dubey Vs. Divisional Forest Officer and others
3
SPLA No. - 1156 of 2026
Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of State of Punjab and others Vs. Jagjit Singh
and others reported in (2017) 1 SCC Page 148 and recent judgment.”
6. The learned Single Judge by means of the impugned judgment and
order while granting the benefit of minimum pay admissible to regular
class IV employee working in the Forest Department on month to month
basis to the petitioner-respondent except for allowances or increments
and calling upon the appellants to file counter affidavit in the said writ
petition, had relied upon the judgment and order dated 07.01.2025 of this
Court passed in Writ A No. 15530 of 2024 (Keshav Prasad v. State of
U.P. and others), which said judgment was passed conferring similar
benefits to the petitioner in the said writ petition, on the basis of the
judgments of the Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab v. Jagjit
Singh, (2017) 1 SCC 148 and that of Sabha Shankar Dube v. Divisional
Forest Officer, (2019) 12 SCC 297.
7. This Court on 30.09.2026 while considering the subject matter in
controversy as well as the fact that the daily wagers working in the
Forest Department were being denied minimum pay scale, since the time
the controversy had been settled by this Court in the case of State of
U.P. and others v. Putti Lal, 1998 (1) UPLBEC 313 which was affirmed
by the Apex Court in the case of State of U.P. v. Putti Lal, 2006 (9) SCC
337, amongst others had called upon the Principal Secretary, Forest
Department, Government of U.P. to explain under what conditions the
present appeal had been preferred, as the controversy had duly been
settled by the Apex Court. In pursuance thereto the Principal Secretary
(Forest) had filed his affidavit dated 06.10.2026 wherein amongst others
it was stated that the petitioner respondent was engaged only as a casual
plantation protection worker, and was not entitled for minimum of pay
scale of class IV for various reasons assigned in the affidavit.
8. In the above background it has been vehemently argued on behalf
of the appellants that the Forest Department had laid guidelines dated
24.09.2024 regarding payment of wages to daily wagers, and the said
guidelines came up for consideration of a Co-ordinate Bench of this
4
SPLA No. - 1156 of 2026
Court in Special Appeal No. 971 of 2025 (Pavneesh Giri v. State of U.P.
and others), however, the Co-ordinate Bench vide the judgment and
order dated 20.01.2026 passed in Special Appeal had remanded the
matter back to the learned Single Judge but had not declared the
aforesaid guidelines dated 24.09.2024 to be illegal. It is further
contended that the Co-ordinate Bench had only held that the said
guidelines were not a government order but administrative instructions
and as such the validity of the guidelines dated 24.09.2024 was yet to be
adjudicated by the learned Single Judge in Writ A No. 9393 of 2023
(Vijay Kumar Srivastava v. State of U.P. and others). Under the
circumstances, the petitioner-respondent was not entitled for minimum
of pay scale in view of the conditions laid down in the said guidelines.
9. The other contention raised by the appellants is that the learned
Single Judge had passed the impugned judgment and order dated
08.07.2026 without affording any opportunity of hearing to the
appellants and also that the final relief had been granted to the petitioner
respondent at the interim stage and the same was not permissible under
law. The appellants in support of their contention have placed reliance
upon the judgment dated 15.02.2016 of the Co-ordinate Bench of this
Court in Special Appeal Defective No. 102 of 2016 (State of U.P. v. Ram
Pal), whereto the learned Single Judge vide the interim order dated
20.08.2015 had directed that in the event the petitioner in the said writ
petition was still working as a class IV daily wager, then he shall be
entitled to payment at the minimum of the pay scale. The Co-ordinate
Bench in the said judgment had placed reliance upon the judgment dated
24.09.2015 passed in Special Appeal No. 1530 of 2007 (State of U.P. v.
Chhiddi) and had ultimately set aside the order dated 20.08.2015 passed
by learned Single Judge.
10. It is also contended on behalf of the appellants that the judgment
and order dated 07.01.2025 passed in Writ A No. 15530 of 2024 (Keshav
Prasad v. State of U.P. and others) has no precedential value. Further the
facts of the present case were clearly distinguishable from that of the
5
SPLA No. - 1156 of 2026
case as Keshav Prasad who had been working since April, 1989 and was
covered by the conditions laid down in the guidelines dated 24.09.2024.
11. Lastly it is contended on behalf of the appellants that the petitioner
respondent was only engaged for short while on seasonal basis without
there being any sanctioned post, and as such the respondent was not
entitled to the benefit of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of
Sabha Shankar Dube (supra) and Jagjit Singh (supra).
12. Per contra it is contended on behalf of the petitioner respondent
that the guidelines dated 24.09.2024 relied upon by the appellants had
already been declared illegal by this Court in the case of Pavneesh Giri
(supra), yet the misleading stand has been taken by the appellants to
deny the benefit of minimum pay-scale to the petitioner-respondent. It is
also contended that this Court in the case of State of U.P v. Putti Lal
(supra), which has been modified by the Apex Court, had clearly
mandated that the State has to provide minimum pay scale to all the
daily wagers who are discharging duties identical to regular class IV
employees in the Forest Department. The law so laid down by this Court
has been upheld in Contempt Application (Civil) No. 2465 of 2004 (Hari
Shankar v. State of U.P.) 2010 (3) UPLBEC 2097, which was affirmed
by a Division Bench of this Court in Special Appeal No. 1205 of 2010
(Chanchal Kumar Tiwari v. State of U.P. and others) . Learned counsel
for petitioner-respondent has further relied upon the judgments of the
Apex Court in the case of Jagjit Singh (supra) and Sabha Shankar Dube
(supra) in support of his contention.
13. It is further contended that the impugned judgment and order had
been passed after hearing the appellants and considering the instructions
submitted by the appellants in support of their case. Furthermore the fact
that the case of the petitioner respondent was squarely covered by the
law repeatedly laid down by this Court as well as the Apex Court, yet the
appellants had illegally denied the benefit of minimum pay scale to the
petitioner-respondent, thereby creating an exceptional circumstance
6
SPLA No. - 1156 of 2026
where the writ petition was ultimately bound to succeed, hence, there is
no irregularity in the impugned judgment and order.
14. As far as the case of Keshav Prasad (supra) relied upon by the
learned Single Judge is concerned it is submitted that in the said case the
appellants had duly extended the benefit of minimum pay scale to
Keshav Prasad and the interim order so passed by the learned Single
Judge was never challenged by filing Special Appeal and accordingly the
writ petition had been finally disposed of. Hence, it cannot be said that
the petitioner respondent is not entitled for the benefit of judgment and
order dated 07.01.2025 passed in the case of Keshav Prasad (supra).
Further it was not open for the appellants to act in pick and choose
manner, and the same clearly shows the arbitrariness on the part of the
appellants.
15. Lastly it is contended that it is totally incorrect on the part of the
appellant to allege that the petitioner respondent had not been working
continuously and had worked only for intermittent periods on seasonal
basis and in support thereof the learned counsel for respondent has
drawn the attention of his Court to para 13 of the affidavit dated
06.10.2026 filed by the Principal Secretary, Forest.
16. We have considered the contention of the respective parties
however, before we advert to the merits of the controversy we would like
to consider the background of the controversy involved regarding
payment of minimum pay-scale to daily wagers working in the Forest
Department, Government of Uttar Pradesh and the law laid down by the
Apex Court as well as by this Court in that regard.
17. The record reveals that the daily wagers are fighting with the State
for about three decades to secure the minimum pay scale guaranteed
under Article 39 (d) of the Constitution of India. In a bunch of petitions,
this Court considered the woes and plight of daily wagers who are
exploited by the State-authorities. Considering the spirit of Constitution
of India which mandates the State authorities to abide by the principle of
7
SPLA No. - 1156 of 2026
‘equal pay for equal work’ as enshrined in Article 39 (d) of the
Constitution of India directed the respondent-State to frame a policy.
Relevant paragraphs of the judgment of this Court in the case of Putti
Lal (supra) are being reproduced herein below:-
“10. The Government works through its servants whose conditions of service
including the pay scale are regulated by it by statutory Rules and/or by
administrative orders subject to Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The
strength of the service in the Government Department is fixed and is also
increased according to the requirement of work. In the present case the
strength of Class III and IV in the Forest Department has been fixed long ago
and does not appear to have been increased and the Department has
undertaken various Schemes. It appears that all the Scheme are not of
permanent nature, but the Daily Wagers have not been appointed
Schemewise. They have been employed by the Forest Department and if a
Scheme has been completed or abandoned they have been transferred to other
Schemes. It is obligatory for the Government to pay salary to its employees
according to prescribed pay scales. It is not open to it to pay them less than
what has been fixed. The Daily wagers are appointed to meet the unexpected
or temporary increased work load. No such appointment can be made when
the need is permanent or semi-permanent to last for long period except for a
short period by way of interim arrangement. The Government cannot take
advantage of prevailing unemployment in the society by employing Daily
Wagers even when the need is of permanent or semi-permanent nature. To
meet such needs regular appointments are required to be made. The fact that
Daily Wagers are working for considerable long time, in some cases even for
more than 20 years, demonstrates that the requirement of the additional hands
in the Department was of permanent or semi-permanent nature and the
Government in such situation should have taken steps for making regular
appointments. But that has not been done. Instead. Daily Wagers have been
appointed who are working on meagre wages. May be that through this
method the Government can employ persons on meagre wagers, but such a
course is not permissible in view of the underlying principle contained in
Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
11. The observations made above are based on the data relating to
Bundelkhand Division, supplied by the petitioners. There is no material on
the record as regards other circles Divisions in the State. As we are relegating
the matter to the Government it is to consider the whole issue after collecting
necessary materials from all the Divisions/Circles of the State.
8
SPLA No. - 1156 of 2026
14. As regards the second submission advanced by the learned Counsel for
the petitioners it may be noted that the writ petition No.15627 of 1988 was
filed by an Association known as Kumaun Van Shramik Sangh Centre and a
daily wager seeking writ of mandamus directing the respondents therein
namely, State of U.P., Secretary, Forest, Lucknow and Additional Chief
Conservator of Forest, Kumaun at Nainital to frame the Scheme and to pay
the petitioner No. 2 and other similarly placed employees the wages at the
rates equivalent to minimum pay in the pay scales of the regularly employed
workers in the corresponding cadres. The learned Judge while allowing the
writ petition did not confine his judgment to the petitioners members only but
issued general directions to the respondents therein for payment of
wages/salary and for framing the Scheme for regularisation. Relevant extract
of the judgment of learned Judge, is reproduced below:
“....but the petitioners have certainly made out a case for issuance of a
direction to the respondents to pay to the petitioner No. 2 and other similarly
circumstance. Daily Rated Labourers/Workers under the control of the
respondents, the wages at the rates equivalent to the minimum pay in the pay
scales of the regularly employed workers in the corresponding cadres but
without any increments with effect from 19.8.1988 on which date the writ
petition was filed in this Court together with corresponding dearness
allowances and additional dearness allowances, if any payable therein, with a
further direction to the respondents to frame a scheme within a period of six
months from the date of presentation of a certified copy of this order before
the Secretary, Forest Department, Government of Uttar Pradesh and the Chief
Conservator of Forest Department, U.P, Lucknow."
The submission of the learned Additional Advocate General to the effect that
the directions given by this Court in the case of Kumaun Van Shramik Sangh
Centre v. State of U.P. (supra), should be confined to the members of that
Association, cannot be accepted for another reason, viz. it is not open to the
Government to pay different pay scale and give different treatment to the
similarly placed employees working in the State unless, there is plausible
justification for such a treatment. In the instant case no such justification has
been demonstrated by the respondents. Therefore, benefits of the said
judgment of the learned Judge have to go to all the Daily Wagers/Muster Roll
employees. It is admitted by the respondents that the pay at the rate as
directed by the learned Judge in the said case, is being paid to those Daily
Wagers who are members of Kumaun Van Shramik Sangh Centre and such
payment is not being made to any other dally wager working anywhere in the
9
SPLA No. - 1156 of 2026
State including in Kumaun hills. It is also admitted that the Scheme as
directed by the learned Judge has not been framed by the Government so far.
The Judgment of the learned Judge is binding on the Government and its
functionaries. They are, therefore, bound to pay in terms of the said judgment
to every daily rated labourers/muster roll employees and the Government is
also bound to frame Scheme for regularisation of their service.”
(emphasis added)
18. The respondent State preferred Special Leave Petition against
judgment of Division Bench of this Court bearing Civil Appeal No.3634
of 1998 (State of U.P. and Others Vs. Putti Lal). The Apex Court in the
appeal filed by the State categorically directed the respondent-State to
pay minimum pay scale to daily wagers on the principle of equal pay for
equal work they were discharging similar duties as that in the regular
employment of the Government. Relevant extract of the judgment is
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 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.”
(emphasis added)
19. The plight of the daily wagers did not end here, and fresh
litigation by filing contempt proceedings had begun. The contempt
proceeding was initiated by one Hari Shankar and others in bunch of
contempt applications leading of which was Contempt Application
(Civil) No.2465 of 2004 (Hari Shankar Vs. State of U.P. and Others)
(2010) 3 UPLBEC 2097 for not complying with the judgment of this
10
SPLA No. - 1156 of 2026
Court as well as the Apex Court in the case of Putti Lal (supra). It
transpires that this Court held the concerned officer guilty of willful and
deliberate disobedience of non-compliance of the aforesaid judgment of
Apex Court as well as this Court.
20. It is pertinent to note that while contesting the said contempt
application, one of the objection raised by the contemnor was that
contempt applications were not maintainable on behalf of applicants as
they have not obtained any direction from this Court either for giving
them minimum of pay scale or even any direction to consider their
claim. The said objection was repelled by the Contempt Court holding
that the Apex Court had held that daily wagers would be entitled to
draw the minimum pay scale received by their counterparts but would
not be entitled to receive allowances and increment so long as they
continued as daily wager.
21. The Contempt Court further recorded that from the nature of
directions issued by the learned Single Judge and Division Bench
approved by the Apex Court in the case of Putti Lal (supra), the
applicants were well within their right to allege non-compliance/
disobedience of such directions by filing present contempt application.
Consequently, the Contempt Court held that contempt application in
view of the nature and extent of directions issued by this Court would
be maintainable.
22. In the aforesaid contempt applications, this Court again repelled
the objection of learned State counsel that minimum of pay scale is
payable only to those daily wagers who were eligible for regularization,
but could not be extended the benefit of the regularisation. Paragraph
nos.16 & 17 of the judgement of this Court in the case of Hari Shankar
Vs. State of U.P. and Others (2010) 3 UPLBEC 2097 are being
reproduced below:-
“16. There were two aspects of the directions issued by this Court. One
was with regard to the claim for regularisation and the other with regard
to grant of minimum of pay scale. In the present case there is no issue
with regard to claim for regularisation as the applicants have already
11
SPLA No. - 1156 of 2026
given up their claim for regularisation. The present matter is only with
regard to award of minimum of pay scale. This Court or the Apex Court
in its judgments have nowhere drawn any distinction regarding grant of
minimum of pay scale although without any benefit of allowances or
increment. It was a general direction without any classification that all
the daily rated workers were to be given minimum of pay scale without
any allowances or increment. The opposite parties having not granted
the minimum of pay scale to the applicants by drawing a distinction of
it being admissible only to those few who had been recommended for
regularisation, amounts to misreading of the judgments of this Court
and the Apex Court. They are trying to impose a condition to
circumvent the import of the judgment, which is not permissible in law
and would amount to clear disobedience.
17. A query was put to Sri K.R. Singh as to whether there was any such
condition laid down in any Rules in that regard whereby such a
distinction had been provided but the reply is that the Rules nowhere
provide for the award of minimum of pay scale. In fact according to
him the Rules are silent about the payment of minimum of pay scale to
the daily rated workers. Thus the governing factors for grant of
minimum of pay scale are the directions contained in the judgments of
this Court and the Apex Court. In view of the above discussions, such
argument is accordingly rejected.”
(emphasis added)
23. Against the order passed by the Contempt Court, a Special Appeal
No.1205 of 2010 Chanchal Kumar Tiwari v. State of U.P. and others,
was preferred which was dismissed by this Court by judgement and
order dated 03.08.2010. Relevant paragraph nos.1, 8 & 17 of the
judgment of this Court in the case of Chanchal Kumar Tiwari (supra) are
reproduced herein below:-
“1. These special appeals against a common order dated 01.07.2010 reported
in (2010) 3 UPLBEC 2097, arise out of proceedings in contempt for non-
payment of wages to daily wage workers engaged in the Forest Department
of the State of Uttar Pradesh. The learned Judge, after noting the order passed
by this Court in State of U.P. and others v. Putti Lal, (1998) 1 UPLBEC 313,
judgment of the Supreme Court dated 21.02.2002 in State of U.P. and others
12
SPLA No. - 1156 of 2026
v. Putti Lal, (2002) 2 UPLBEC 1595, and after being prima facie satisfied
that there has been willful and deliberate disobedience/non-compliance on the
part of the opposite parties in the proceedings before him, of the directions of
this Court, as contained in the judgments in Putti Lal (supra), as modified by
the Supreme Court, issued various directions and, at the same time, observed
that it would be open to the Principal Secretary, Department of Forest,
Government of U.P. and the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, State of
U.P. to consider the matter in the light of the observations made in the said
order and take necessary steps in that regard.
"8. From the above judgments and interim direction, it would be clear that the
law as declared in terms of Article 141 of the Constitution of India, is that the
daily wagers, as long as they continue on daily wage basis, are entitled to
draw at the minimum of the pay scale being received by their counterparts in
Government and would not be entitled to any other allowances or increment
so long as they continue as daily wagers. In spite of these judgments, the
State Government has not been paying to employees, engaged as daily labour,
the wages in terms of the judgment of this Court, as upheld by the Supreme
Court."
"17. On consideration of the judgments in Putti Lal (supra) , both of this Court
and of the Supreme Court, there is nothing in the said judgments to
differentiate employees into those who are eligible for regularization and
those who are not eligible for regularization. The principle on which they are
paid being, that all such daily wagers are doing similar work and are similarly
placed persons and as such between them, there can be no mini-classification.
The fact that under the rules framed, one may be eligible for regularization
considering qualification, like educational qualification, experience, age etc.
and the others may not be eligible, cannot result in holding that it is open to
the State to pay different wages to similarly situated employees and to treat
such persons differently, though they are similarly placed and do the same
work. This will be abhorrent to our constitutional values of equality as
enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The State had not raised
such a plea before the Supreme Court against the judgment in appeal in Putti
Lal (supra) . The observations by the Supreme Court are also not restricted to
those who are eligible for regularization. The Supreme Court itself has, while
applying the principle of "equal pay for equal work", held that a daily wager,
if he is discharging similar duties with those in the regular employment of the
Government should at least be entitled to receive the minimum at the pay
scale, though they may not be entitled to any other increment or allowances
as permissible to their counterparts in the Government employment. That,
13
SPLA No. - 1156 of 2026
they are doing similar work as regular employees is not disputed, as the State
Government itself is paying the minimum in the pay scale to those who are
eligible for regularization. All daily rated employees were being paid the
same minimum wage before the direction to pay them at the minimum of the
pay scale. The State has nowhere disputed that they are doing similar work.
This classification between those who are eligible for regularization and those
who are not eligible for regularization, was sought to be made for the first
time before this Court in the contempt proceedings. Such a plea was not
raised earlier, and such a plea would be barred by the principles of
constructive res judicata. Even otherwise, such a plea would not be
permissible considering the principal of "equal pay for equal work". The
contention advanced by the State, which would result in departing from the
principle of "equal pay for equal work", has to be rejected."
(emphasis added)
24. Against the judgement of this Court in the case of Hari Shankar
(supra) as well as the judgement of Special Appellate Court in the case
of Chanchal Kumar Tiwari (supra), the respondent-State again preferred
Special Leave Petition before the Apex Court reported in (2016) 4 SCC
721 (Deputy Director Social Forestry Division and Another Vs. Lakshmi
Chandra). The Apex Court affirmed the orders of Contempt Court in the
case of Hari Shankar (supra) as well as judgement of Appellate Court in
the case of Chanchal Kumar Tiwari (supra), and directed the Principal
Secretary to the Department of Forests, U.P. and the Principal Chief
Conservator of Forests, U.P. for the implementation of the aforesaid
orders.
25. The Apex Court further directed that in case, the aforesaid orders
are not implemented, the Principal Secretary to the Department of
Forests, U.P. and the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, U.P. shall
not be eligible to draw salary. Paragraph nos.5 & 6 of the said judgement
are being reproduced below:-
“5. 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
14
SPLA No. - 1156 of 2026
month from today and the affidavit in that regard shall be filed before the
High Court within two weeks thereafter.
6. 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.”
(emphasis added)
26. The judgement of Contempt Court in the case of Hari Shankar
(supra) and judgement of Special Appellate Court in the case of
Chanchal Kumar Tiwari (supra) as well as judgement of Apex Court in
the case of Lakshmi Chandra (supra) in unequivocal terms repelled the
submissions of Forest Department that they were obligated to pay
minimum pay scale only to those employees who were eligible for
regularization and had been working for more than 10-20 years, but
could not be regularised for want of regularisation rules.
27. A categorical finding has been recorded by this Court in the
aforesaid cases that neither the judgement of this Court in the case of
Putti Lal (supra) nor the judgement of Apex Court approving the
judgement of Putti Lal (supra) with regard to payment of minimum pay
scale without any other benefits lays any such distinction and has
directed the authorities to pay minimum pay scale to daily wagers.
28. Despite there being a judgment of this Court as well as Apex
Court in the case of Putti Lal (supra), and further judgment of this Court
in the case of Chanchal Kumar Tiwari (supra) wherein a categorical
direction was issued to the respondent to pay minimum pay scale to all
daily wagers who are discharging similar duties as that of regular Class-
IV employees, the respondents for the reasons best known to them did
not provide minimum pay scale to the daily wagers who were entitled
for the same though they were discharging same duties as that of regular
employees.
29. After about eight years from the date of judgement of this Court in
the case of Chanchal Kumar Tiwari (supra), some of the daily wagers
approached this Court by filing Writ-A No.624 of 2023 claiming
15
SPLA No. - 1156 of 2026
minimum pay scale. This Court in the aforesaid writ petition found that
action of the respondent in not paying minimum pay scale to daily
wagers was contrary to law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of
Jagjit Singh (supra) and Sabha Shanker Dube (supra) this Court sought
explanation from the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest U.P,
Lucknow. In compliance of the order of this Court in Writ-A No.624 of
2023, a personal affidavit was filed by Principal Chief Conservator of
Forest wherein it was stated that minimum pay scale @ Rs. 18,000/- was
th
to be paid to the petitioners as per 7 Pay Commission.
30. Further, the learned counsel for State in Writ-A No.624 of 2023
had also placed on record communication dated 23.05.2023 issued by
Principal Chief Conservator Forest, Lucknow to the Additional Chief
Secretary thereby requesting him to take a decision with regard to
payment of minimum pay scale @ Rs.18,000/-. Relevant paragraph of
communication dated 23.05.2023 is being reproduced herein below:-
“दिनांक 01:01.2016 से प्रदेश सरकार द्वारा सप्तम वेतन आयोग की संस्तुतियां स्वीकार की गयी
तथा सप्तम वेतन आयोग के आधार पर समस्त कार्मिकों के वेतन निर्धारित किये गये। इसी कम में
प्रधान मुख्य वन संरक्षक और विभागाध्यक्ष, उ०प्र० के पत्र संख्या-1588/2-10, दिनांक
15.06.2017 द्वारा न्यूनतम वेतन पा रहें दैनिक श्रमिकों को (समूह ग हेतु रू0 19900/- तथा समूह
घ हेतु रू0 18000/-) के वेतन की अनुमन्यता के सम्बन्धम में दिशा निर्देश मांगे गये। शासन के पत्र
संख्या-1773/चौदह-3-17-300 (12)/2018, दिनांक 08.03.2018 द्वारा यह निर्देश दिया गया कि
"प्रश्नगत प्रकरण में पुरीक्षित वेतन मैट्रिक्स के संबंध में वित्त (वेतन आयोग) अनुभाग-2 उ०प्र० शासन
के शासनादेश संख्या-67/2016/वे०आ०-2-04 (म)/2016 दिनांक 22.12.2016 राज्य सरकार के
पूर्ण कालिक सेवाओं के कार्मिकों पर ही लागू है। उक्त शासनादेश दैनिक वेतनभोगी कार्मिकों पर
लागू नहीं है।" (संलग्नक-4)
उक्त पत्र के क्रम में ऐसे दैनिक वेतन भोगी कार्मिक जिन्हें न्यूनतम वेतन अनुमन्य किया गया था को
रू0 7000/- प्रतिमाह का वेतन दिया जाने लगा। यहाँ यह भी संज्ञान में लाना है कि इन कर्मियों को
कतिपय वन प्रभागों में रू0 18000/- प्रतिमाह का वेतन सप्तम वेतन आयोग के न्यूनतम स्तर के
अनुसार दिया जा रहा था।
प्रभावित दैनिक श्रमिकों द्वारा न्यायालय में वाद दाखि ल करने के पश्चात न्यायालय द्वारा दिये गये
निर्णय के कम में शासनादेश दिनांक 20.03.2023 (संलग्नक-5) से निम्न आदेश निर्गत किया गया
है, जिसका प्रभावी अंश निम्न है-
16
SPLA No. - 1156 of 2026
"अवगत कराना है कि शासन के पत्रांक रिट-105/81-3-2023-300(12)/2009 दिनांक
22.02.2023 द्वारा रिट याचिका संख्या-11964/2018 मोहन स्वरूप व अन्य बनाम उ०प्र०
राज्यादि अन्य से सम्बन्धि त याचियों को दिनांक 01.04.2018 से रू0 18000/- सर्शत न्यूनतम
वेतन प्रतिमाह भुगतान किये जाने के निर्देश प्रसारित किये गये।
2. उक्त पत्र दिनांक 22.02.2023 में उल्लि खि त रिट याचिका संख्या-11964/2018 मोहन स्वरूप
व अन्य बनाम उ०प्र० राज्यादि से सम्बन्धि त याचियों के स्थान पर रिट याचिका
संख्या-11964/2018 मोहन स्वरूप व अन्य बनाम उ०प्र० राज्यादि के साथ सम्बद्ध सभी
याचिकाओं के याचियों को पढ़ा जाये इस शासनादेश दिनांक 22.02.2023 को केवल इस सीमा
तक संशोधित माना जायेगा।"
2. उक्त शासनादेश के अनुपालन में रिट याचिका संख्या-11964/2018 मोहन स्वरूप व अन्य
बनाम उ०प्र० राज्यादि से सम्बन्धि त याचियों को दिनांक 01.04.2018 से रू0 18000/- सशर्त
न्यूनतम वेतन प्रतिमाह भुगतान किये जाने के निर्देश इस कार्यालय के पत्रांक को0 के0 1812/6
जी०जी०एल दिनांक 05.04.2023 (संलग्नक 6) से सम्बन्धि त प्रभागीय वनाधिकारी / प्रभागीय
निदेशकों को जिनके यहां मोहन स्वरूप से सम्बन्धि त रिट याचिकायें सम्बद्ध थीं (लगभग 21 वन
प्रभाग आच्छादित), निर्गत किया गया।
उक्त्त शासकीय पत्र दिनांक08.03.2018 (संलग्नक-22) का परिचालन समस्त फील्ड अधिकारियों
को मुख्य वन संरक्षक, मानव संसाधन विकास, उ०प्र०, लखनऊ का पत्रांक 1261/2-10 दिनांक
20.03.2018 (संलग्नक-23) से किया गया जिसके फलस्वरूप फील्ड स्तर के अधिकारियों ने जो
दैनिक श्रमिकों का रू0 18000/- दिया जा रहा था, उक्त शासनादेश (संलग्नक-24) के अनुपालन में
सम्बन्धि त प्रभागीय अधिकारियों द्वारा निरस्तीकरण आदेश जारी करते हुए रू0 7000/- प्रतिमाह
भुगतान किये जाने आदेश जारी किये गये, जो वर्तमान में दैनिक श्रमिकों के लिए प्रचलित है।
चूंकि उक्त बिन्दु -1 व 2 में मोहन स्वरूप से सम्बद्ध रिट याचिकाओं शासनादेश दिनांक
20.03.2023 से दिनांक 01.04.2018 से रू 0 18000/- सर्शत न्यूनतम वेतन प्रतिमाह भुगतान
किये जाने के निर्देश प्रसारित किये गये।
इस सम्बन्ध यहां यह भी कहना उचित होगा कि जिन प्रभाग स्तर पर जिन न्यूनतम वेतन कार्मिक 9.
को रू 0 18000/- से घटाकर रू 0 7000/- किया गया है वह भी आगामी दिनों में वाद दायर किये
जाने की प्रबल सम्भावना है , ऐसे में राज्य मुकदमा नीति एवं राज्य एक welfare स्तर मुकदमों की
बाढ़ कम करने के लिए शासन स्तर से नीति निर्धारण करते हुये सामान्य दिशा निर्देश जारी किया
जाना आवश्यक होगा।
अतः शासन से अनुरोध है कि उक्त बिन्दु -1 से 9 तक का अवलोकन करते हुए , बिन्दु -9 पर पूर्व में
जैसे शासन द्वारा संदर्भित पत्र दिनांक 11.03.2010 तथा दिनांक 25.05.2010 ( संलग्नक -25) के
समान ही नीतिगत निर्णय लेते हुये सामान्य दिशा - निर्देश जारी करने का कष्ट करें। "
17
SPLA No. - 1156 of 2026
31. Based on the personal affidavit of Principal Chief Conservator and
communication dated 23.05.2023, this Court passed an order dated
24.05.2023. Relevant extract of order dated 24.05.2023 is reproduced
herein below:-
“3. Sri Shrawan Kumar Dubey, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel
has placed a communication letter dated 23.05.2023 written by Principal
Chief Conservator, Lucknow to the Additional Chief Secretary, State of U.P.
whereby she has requested the Additional Chief Secretary to take decision
with regard to payment of minimum wages @ Rs.18,000/- per month under
the 7th Pay Commission to daily wage employees in the light of judgement of
this Court in the case of Ram Surat Yadav Vs. State of U.P. passed in Special
Appeal No.974 of 2004, Mohan Swaroop and Another Vs. State of U.P. and
Others passed in Writ-A No.11964 of 2018 and judgement of Apex Court in
the case of Sabha Shankar Dube Vs. Divisional Forest Officer & Others
passed in Civil Appeal Nos.10957-10963 of 2018.
4. This Court may record that once respondent accepts that petitioners are
entitled to minimum wages @ Rs.18,000/- as per 7th Pay Commission, there
is no reason to deny the said benefit to other similarly situated employees of
the Forest Department, who are working as daily wager. This Court expects
that that State of U.P. shall come out with a positive policy in respect to
minimum wages to daily wage employees @ Rs.18,000/- per month as per
7th Pay Commission.
5. This Court may also note that such policy will not only give the daily
wagers their entitlement to the minimum of pay scale, but also would relieve
this Court from unnecessarily litigation which would help the Court in
disseminating justice to those who are already in queue. Such a policy would
also help in reducing expenditure incurred by the State in unnecessary
litigation. This Court expects that such decision shall be taken and necessary
orders shall be issued by the State Government expeditiously, preferably
within a period of two months from the date of production of certified copy
of this order.”
(emphasis added)
32. Despite there being a communication of Principal Chief
Conservator dated 23-05-2023 requesting the Additional Chief Secretary
Forest to frame a policy to pay minimum pay scales at the rate of rupees
18
SPLA No. - 1156 of 2026
th
18,000 as provided in the 7 Pay Commission, the respondent State did
not deem it fit to frame any policy with regard to payment of minimum
pay scale at the rate of Rs.18,000/- which has led to further litigation,
and several writ petitions had been filed by the daily wagers claiming
minimum pay scale. One such writ petition is Writ-A No.9383 of 2023
(Vijay Kumar Srivastava Vs. State of U.P. and 2 Others).
33. It transpires from the record that after filing of several affidavits
the appellants had filed a compliance affidavit sworn by Sri Manoj
Singh, IAS then posted as Additional Chief Secretary, Environment,
Forest and Climate Change, U.P. wherein it was stated that the State is
ready to make payment @ Rs.18,000/- with all arrears w.e.f. 01.04.2018
and also to those who have though been regularized but their arrears
regarding Rs.18,000/- remain unpaid. Paragraph nos.4, 6, 7, 9, 10, 12 &
13 of the judgement of this Court in the case of Vijay Kumar Srivastava
(supra) are being reproduced herein below:-
“ 4. Sri Ashok Mehta, learned Additional Advocate General has explained the
position in the matter of the State and submits that now the State is ready to
make payment of Rs. 18,000/- with all arrears w.e.f. 1.4.2018 and also those
who have though been regularized but their arrears regarding Rs.18,000/-
have remained unpaid. Sri Mehta further explains the position of the State in
respect of daily-wagers who have been working for the last two decades or
more their claim for payment of minimum of pay scale as per their eligibility
would be matter of policy, which would be framed soon by the State.
6. Thus, it is clear that State is ready to make sure that all those who have
been drawing Rs.7000/- would be entitled not only current and future
payment @ Rs. 18,000/- per month but also as per 7th pay recommendation
by way of minimum of pay-scale but would also be entitled to arrears w.e.f
1.4.2018 of the said pay. Those who have been regularized, as per statement
of Mr. Mehta, and have not received arrears of pay as per recommendation of
7th pay commission minimum pay of Rs.18,000/-, shall also be paid within
the time prescribed by the State Government in the letter dated 7th December,
2023 (supra).
7. Regarding policy making and presenting the same before the Court in
respect of those who are working on daily-wage basis since last 20 years, Mr.
Mehta states that positively as far as possible on the next date fixed some
19
SPLA No. - 1156 of 2026
policy would be framed and be placed. He submits that State Government is
very sincerely and honestly taking up issue and would come out in black and
white with definite policy in respect of such daily-wagers positively by the
next date fixed.
9. Shri Mehta in reply submits that whatever may have happened in the past,
this time government is all set to make payments within a week and frame
policy for others and place the same by next date fixed.
10. Having gone through the compliance affidavit and the order dated
07.12.2023 passed on behalf of the State Government and noticed what has
been stated by Shri Mehta ,I find there to be no reason to doubt bonafides of
the Government qua action taken in the matter. Officers in the cadre of Indian
Administrative Services and that too of a senior rank like Additional Chief
Secretary and Under Secretary to the Government are expected to go by their
words and not to trace back their steps from their stand taken before the Court
to invite contempt proceedings.
12. All the previous stand, if taken by the State Government and is contrary to
what has been stated in compliance affidavit filed today and the directions
contained in orders dated 06.12.2023, and 07.12.2023, shall be deemed to
have been superceded.
13. In so far as policy framing is concerned, there is required both fairness
and transparency. So, for framing of policy, the appropriate Committee
should be Committee of State Government under the chairmanship of the
Additional Chief Secretary or any officer nominated by him not below the
rank of the Secretary to the State Government. The Committee should consist
of 5 or 6 members from Government and Forest department, as it may
nominate but it will necessarily include Principal Chief Conservator of
Forest. The Committee should examine all aspects for payment of minimum
of the pay scale to all working daily-wagers working in the forest department
and shall frame policy within a period of thirty days from today. The
Committee shall also prepare the chart in respect of such daily
wagers/workers working in different divisions of forest department of the
State of U.P. as per seniority of their engagement in employment and shall
place the same before the Court.”
(emphasis added)
34. It is also pertinent to mention here that the Apex Court in the
case of Jagjit Singh (supra) had considered the judgement of the Apex
20
SPLA No. - 1156 of 2026
Court in the case of Putti Lal (supra) in paragraph nos.38 to 38.1 (SCC
148 page 203) and reading of said paragraph reveals that the Apex
Court did not record any finding that the judgement of Putti Lal
(supra) states that the benefit of ‘equal pay for equal work’ is to be
given to only those daily-wagers who have completed 10 or 20 years
of service.
35. Paragraph nos. 54.2, 57 & 58 of the judgement of the Apex
Court in the case of Jagjit Singh (supra) are being reproduced herein-
below:-
“54.2.The High Court extended different wages to temporary employees
by categorizing them on the basis of their length of service. This is clearly
in the teeth of the judgment in Daily Rated Casual Labour Vs. Union of
India (1988) 1 SCC 122. In the above judgment, this Court held that
classification of employees based on their length of service (those who had
not completed 720 days of service, in a period of 3 years; those who had
completed more than 720 days of service-with effect from 1.4.1977; and
those who had completed 1200 days of service), for payment of different
levels of wages (even though they were admittedly discharging the same
duties), was not tenable. The classification was held to be violative of
Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
57. There is no room for any doubt that the principle of ‘equal pay for
equal work’ has emerged from an interpretation of different provisions of
the Constitution. The principle has been expounded through a large
number of judgments rendered by this Court, and constitutes law declared
by this Court. The same is binding on all the courts in India, under Article
141 of the Constitution of India. The parameters of the principle have been
summarized by us in paragraph 42 hereinabove. The principle of ‘equal
pay for equal work’ has also been extended to temporary employees
(differently described as work-charge, daily wage, casual, ad-hoc,
contractual, and the like). The legal position, relating to temporary
employees has been summarized by us, in paragraph 44 hereinabove. The
above legal position which has been repeatedly declared, is being
reiterated by us yet again.
58. In our considered view, it is fallacious to determine artificial
parameters to deny fruits of labour. An employee engaged for the same
work cannot be paid less than another who performs the same duties and
21
SPLA No. - 1156 of 2026
responsibilities. Certainly not, in a welfare state. Such an action besides
being demeaning, strikes at the very foundation of human dignity. Any
one, who is compelled to work at a lesser wage does not do so voluntarily.
He does so to provide food and shelter to his family, at the cost of his self-
respect and dignity, at the cost of his self-worth, and at the cost of his
integrity. For he knows that his dependents would suffer immensely, if he
does not accept the lesser wage. Any act of paying less wages as compared
to others similarly situate constitutes an act of exploitative enslavement,
emerging out of a domineering position. Undoubtedly, the action is
oppressive, suppressive and coercive, as it compels involuntary
subjugation.”
(emphasis added)
36. The same view has been reiterated by the Apex Court in the case of
Sabha Shanker Dube (supra). Paragraph nos.10 & 11 of the said judgement
are being reproduced herein-below:-
“10. The issue that was considered by this Court in Jagjit Singh (supra) is
whether temporary employees (daily wage employees, ad hoc appointees,
employees appointed on casual basis, contractual employees and likewise)
are entitled to the minimum of the regular pay scales on account of their
performing the same duties which are discharged by those engaged on
regular basis against the sanctioned posts. After considering several
judgments including the judgments of this Court in Tilak Raj (supra) and
Surjit Singh (supra), this Court held that temporary employees are entitled
to draw wages at the minimum of the pay scales which are applicable to
the regular employees holding the same post.
11. In view of the judgment in Jagjit Singh (supra), we are unable to
uphold the view of the High Court that the Appellants-herein are not
entitled to be paid the minimum of the pay sales. We are not called upon to
adjudicate on the rights of the Appellants relating to the regularization of
their services. We are concerned only with the principle laid down by this
Court initially in Putti Lal (supra) relating to persons who are similarly
situated to the Appellants and later affirmed in Jagjit Singh (supra) that
temporary employees are entitled to minimum of the pay scales as long as
they continue in service.”
(emphasis added)
37. In the light of above we now consider the contentions of the
respective parties.
22
SPLA No. - 1156 of 2026
38. As far as the contention of the appellants in respect of the
judgment of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Pavneesh
Giri (supra) is concerned, this Court while disposing of the Special
Appeal vide judgment and order dated 20.01.2026 amongst others had
held as under :-
“9. Insofar as the relief for the payment of minimum of pay in the pay scale
with which the original petitioner/appellant claims parity is concerned, the
matter may require further consideration by the learned Single Judge, keeping
in mind the observations and directions of the Supreme Court including those
contained in paragraph No. 14 of the said report. That specific consideration
was not dealt with by the learned Single Judge.
10. Further, the Office Memorandum dated 24.09.2024 cannot be described
as a 'Government Order', it is mere an administrative decision. In light of the
law laid down by the Supreme Court, if it is found to be contrary to the
directions issued in Putti Lal (supra), it may not require a specific challenge
for the purposes of constitutional writ of mandamus to compel the authorities
to make payments in terms of the decision of the Supreme Court.”
39. The perusal of the said judgment clearly reveals that the Co-
ordinate Bench of this Court had held that the office memorandum dated
24.09.2024 containing the guidelines dated 24.09.2024 is merely an
administrative decision which may not require specific challenge, if it is
found to be contrary to the directions issued in the case of Putti Lal
(supra) . Further the matter was remanded back to the learned Single
Judge only in respect of petitioner-appellant’s claim of entitlement to be
paid minimum of pay in the pay scale applicable to permanent
employees.
40. Thus, in view of the fact that the guidelines contained in the office
memorandum dated 24.09.2024 being contrary to the law laid down by
the Apex Court in the case of Putti Lal (supra) , are clearly illegal and
cannot be relied upon by the appellants while defending their action in
denying the claim of the petitioner for minimum pay scale. The
judgment of this Court in the case of Pavneesh Giri (supra) in clear
terms has held that the office memorandum dated 24.09.2024 is illegal
23
SPLA No. - 1156 of 2026
by recording a finding that it is not a government order but merely an
administrative decision and it is not required to be challenged.
41. A similar view has also been held by another Co-ordinate Bench
of this Court in Special Appeal No. 784 of 2026 (Shripal Vs. State of
U.P. & 2 Ors.). Thus in view of above, the contention advanced by the
learned Additional Advocate General that the matter regarding validity
of guidelines dated 24.09.2024 was yet to be adjudicated upon by this
Court is ill founded and misplaced.
42. The other contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is
that the impugned judgment has been passed without affording an
opportunity of hearing to the appellant, however in response thereto the
learned counsel for the respondent has placed reliance upon the order
sheet of the Writ-A No. 2960 of 2026 (Umesh Vs. State of U.P. & 2
Ors.) , out of which the other connected Special Appeal No. 1157 of
2026 (State of U.P. Vs. Umesh) , arises and the same reveals that the
learned Single Judge on 07.04.2026 had directed the learned Standing
Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants to provide a copy of the
instructions filed in the said writ petition to the learned counsel for the
petitioner-respondent. Subsequently this Court vide order dated
06.05.2026 granted time to the learned counsel for the petitioner-
respondent to file objections to the instructions filed by the learned
Standing Counsel and it is only subsequent thereto that the impugned
judgment and order dated 10.07.2026 had been passed. Moreover, the
appellants instead of filing counter affidavit in pursuance to the order
dated 10.07.2026 had sought two weeks further time to file counter
affidavit on 17.08.2026, and thereafter when the matter was listed again
on 01.09.2026, the appellants had sought three weeks further time to file
counter affidavit in the writ petition.
43. Hence, the record reveals that the impugned judgment and order
dated 10.07.2026 had been passed after the learned counsel for the
appellants had brought the instructions on record. Further the appellants
had not filed the counter affidavit, despite being afforded ample
opportunity. In the circumstances, it cannot be said that the impugned
24
SPLA No. - 1156 of 2026
judgment and order dated 10.07.2026 has been passed without affording
any opportunity of hearing to the appellants. Further the submission so
made by the appellants is contrary to the records. Even otherwise the
appellants have failed to place any material on record in the present
appeals to demonstrate that the petitioner-respondent is not entitled for
the relief granted by the learned Single Judge.
44. The next contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is
that the impugned judgment and order grants final relief to the
petitioner-respondent at the interim stage, which could not have been
done. However, we are of the view that despite the passage of about 30
years, the daily wagers working in the Department of Forest,
Government of U.P. are being made to run from pillar to post for their
rightful claim of minimum pay scale and the appellants have left no
stone upturned to deny the said legitmate claim to the daily wagers
including the petitioner-respondent on one flimsy pretext or the other. In
this regard this Court in the paragraphs above has already considered the
various judgments passed by this Court as well as the Apex Court,
wherein it has been repeatedly affirmed that the daily wagers in the
Forest Department, are entitled to minimum of pay scale.
45. Hence, it is beyond doubt that this is a case where the law has
already been squarely settled by the Apex Court. Moreso, the guidelines
as contained in the office memorandum dated 24.09.2024 have also been
held to be illegal being contrary to the law laid down by the Apex Court
in the case of Putti Lal (supra) . Thus, this Court is of the view that the
legal position in respect of the controversy involved in present case
stands duly settled, and as such there was no occasion for this Court, to
have denied the benefit of minimum pay scale without any allowance or
increment to the petitioner-respondent. Further the denial of such benefit
at the interim stage, and providing the same at the stage of final hearing
after exchange of pleadings would have caused severe hardship and
injury to the petitioner-respondent, by denial of a claim to which he was
legally entitled and there is nothing on record to demonstrate that the
25
SPLA No. - 1156 of 2026
petitioner-respondent would not have ultimately succeeded in the writ
petition.
46. In this regard this Court in Special Appeal No. 543 of 2003
(Ashok Kumar Bajpai Vs. Dr. (Smt.) Ranjana Bajpai), AIR 2004
Allahabad, 107 had held as under :-
“17. In view of the above, it is evident that the Court should not grant interim
relief which amounts to final relief and in exceptional circumstances where
the Court is satisfied that ultimately the petitioner is bound to succeed and
fact-situation warrants granting such a relief, the Court may grant the relief
but it must record reasons for passing such an order and make it clear as
what are the special circumstances for which such a relief is being granted to
a party.”
47. Further the Apex Court in the case of Deoraj v. State of
Maharashtra & Ors. (2004) 4 SCC 697 while considering as to whether a
final relief would have been granted at the interim stage had held as
under :-
“12. Situations emerge where the granting of an interim relief would
tantamount to granting the final relief itself. And then there may be converse
cases where withholding of an interim relief would tantamount to dismissal of
main petition itself; for, by the time the main matter comes up for hearing
there would be nothing left to be allowed as relief to the petitioner though all
the findings may be in his favour. In such cases the availability of a very
strong prima facie case ___ of a standard much higher than just prima facie
case, the considerations of balance of convenience and irreparable injury
forcefully tilting the balance of case totally in favour of the applicant may
persuade the Court to grant an interim relief though it amounts to granting the
final relief itself. Of course, such would be rare and exceptional cases. The
Court would grant such an interim relief only if satisfied that withholding of
it would prick the conscience of the Court and do violence to the sense of
justice, resulting in injustice being perpetuated throughout the hearing, and at
the end the Court would not be able to vindicate the cause of justice.
Obviously such would be rare cases accompanied by compelling
circumstances, where the injury complained of is immediate and pressing and
would cause extreme hardship. The conduct of the parties shall also have to
be seen and the Court may put the parties on such terms as may be prudent.”
48. Hence, in view of the law discussed by us in the paragraphs above
it is no longer res-integra that the daily wagers in the Department of
Forest, Government of U.P. are entitled to minimum pay scale except
allowances and increments, thus, there was no occasion for denying the
said benefit to the petitioner-respondent that too after obtaining
instructions from the appellants.
26
SPLA No. - 1156 of 2026
49. The appellants in respect of their contention have vehemently
placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court passed in the Special
Appeal Defective No. 102 of 2016 (State of U.P. & Ors. Vs. Ram Pal)
which said judgment has been passed while placing reliance upon the
judgment and order dated 24.09.2015 passed in Special Appeal No. 1530
of 2007 (State of U.P. Vs. Chhiddi) . The judgment and order dated
24.09.2015 passed by this Court in the case of State of U.P. Vs. Chhiddi
came up for consideration before the Apex Court in the Case of Sabha
Shanker Dube (supra), as would be evident from the paragraphs below:-
8. It is necessary for us to refer to the judgment of the Division Bench of the
High Court of Allahabad in State of U.P. v. Chhiddi as all the impugned
Special Appeals were dismissed by following the said judgment. The
directions issued by the learned Single Judge to re-consider the Writ
Petitioners for regularization of their services by ignoring the minimum
educational qualifications and the physical endurance requirements as well as
continuance of the Writ Petitioners on a daily wage basis with the minimum
of the pay scales were set aside by the Division Bench.
9. The daily wagers relied upon a judgment of this Court in Putti Lal and
submitted that the same relief may be extended to them. It is relevant to note
that the judgment in Putti Lal (supra) relates to a dispute similar to that
involved in this case. Daily rated wage earners in the Forest Department in
the State of Uttar Pradesh approached the High Court for regularization of
their services. The Division Bench of the High Court of Allahabad directed
the State Government to constitute the Committee as directed in order to
frame the scheme for regularization. The judgment of the High Court that the
daily rated wage workers shall be paid at the minimum of the pay scales was
affirmed by this Court on the principle of equal pay for equal work. The
Division Bench of the High Court while deciding State of U.P. v. Chhiddi
referred to the judgment in Putti Lal but placed reliance on a later judgment
of this Court Tilak Raj (supra). The Division Bench of the High Court also
cited the case of Surjit Singh to hold that the daily wagers cannot seek the
benefit of the judgment of Putti Lal case in view of the subsequent decisions
of this Court wherein, according to the High Court, it was held that daily
wage employees were not entitled to the minimum of the pay scales.”
50. However, as already considered by us in the paragraphs above, the
Apex Court in the case of Sabha Shanker Dube (supra) while relying
upon the judgment in the case of Jagjit Singh (supra) was unable to
uphold the view of the High Court (in the case of Chhiddi) that the daily
wagers before the Apex Court were not entitled to be paid the minimum
of pay scales. Thus the view of this Court in the case of State of U.P. Vs.
Chhiddi stands diluted in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in the
case of Sabha Shanker Dube (supra).
27
SPLA No. - 1156 of 2026
51. It is also the contention on behalf of the appellants that the
directions passed by this Court in the case of Keshav Prasad (supra) has
no precedential value as far as the present controversy is concerned. The
perusal of the interim order dated 07.01.2025 passed in the case of
Keshav Prasad (supra) reveals that the controversy involved in the said
case was the same as that in the present case. Further in pursuance to the
interim order dated 07.01.2025 the appellants had given the benefit of
the minimum pay scale to Keshav Prasad (supra) as would be evident
from the order dated 16.02.2026 finally passed in the said writ petition
and the same reads as under :-
“1. Sri Daya Shanker Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that since the order with regard to the minimum pay scale, without any
allowances, has already been granted to the petitioner, herein, therefore, he
seeks to withdraw the instant writ petition.
2. Accordingly, the instant writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn.
3. The benefits already granted/accrued to the petitioner shall not be
withdrawn till the age of superannuation of the petitioner herein, subject to
his satisfactory performance. If the petitioner is found not working to the
satisfaction of the department concerned or is guilty of misconduct etc., his
services can be terminated by the respondents after following due process of
law and giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner in this regard.
4. Let this case be delinked from bunch matters and shall not be shown in the
cause list. “
52. Hence, it is evident that the appellants are acting in a pick and
choose manner while extending the benefit of an interim order to
similarly situated daily wagers, and denying the same to the petitioner-
respondent in the present special appeal. Thus, the appellants themselves
are acting in an arbitrary and illegal manner while granting the benefit of
minimum pay scale to some daily wagers, while denying the same to
others, as is in the present case. Further the appellants are contesting
such cases to the hilt, which is quite unbecoming on the part of the State.
Further the distinction sought to be made by the appellants that the
petitioner-respondent is not similarly situated as Keshav Prasad is also
illusory, in view of the fact that the guidelines dated 24.09.2024 have
already been held to be illegal.
53. Moreso the Apex Court in the case of Bhagwan Dass And Others vs
State Of Haryana & Ors 1987 (4) SCC 634, had held that in a claim for
28
SPLA No. - 1156 of 2026
equal wages, the duration for which an employee would remain engaged,
would not make any difference, the relevant extract of the judgment
reads as under :-
“Lastly we have to deal with the contention that the Scheme is a temporary
Scheme and the posts are sanctioned on an year to year basis having regard to
the temporary nature of the Scheme. We are unable to comprehend how this
factor can be invoked for violating. 'Equal pay for equal work' doctrine.
Whether appointments are for temporary periods and the Schemes are
temporary in nature is irrelevant once it is shown that the nature of the duties
and functions discharged and the work done is similar and the doctrine of
'Equal pay for equal work' is attracted. As regards the effect of the breaks
given at the end of every six months, we will deal with this aspect shortly
hereafter. That however is no ground for refusing to respect the 'Equal pay for
equal work' doctrine. Be it realized that we are concerned with the 'Equal
work Equal pay' doctrine only within the parameters of the four grounds and
the fact situation discussed hereinabove. We are not called upon, and we have
no need or occasion to consider the applicability or otherwise of the said
doctrine outside these parameters.”
54. Lastly, it has been contended by the appellants that the petitioner-
respondent has worked only for intermittent duration of seasonal basis
and has not been continuously engaged as a daily wager in the
Department of Forest, Government of U.P. The contention so made is
frivolous and devoid of merits in view of the averments made in
paragraph no. 13 of the affidavit of the Principal Secretary, Forest
Department and the chart contained therein on being translated in
English reads as under:-
“13. That the petitioner-respondent herein is neither a regular nor a continuously
engaged worker. The official records disclose that he was engaged only as a casual
Plantation Protection Worker, the details whereof are as follows :
Serial No. Year Duration of work
1. 2009 Three months
2. 2010 Zero day
3. 2011 Zero day
4. 2012 Zero day
5. 2013 Zero day
6. 2014 Zero day
7. 2015 Zero day
8. 2016 Zero day
9. 2017 Zero day
10. 2018 Zero day
11. 2019 Ten months
12. 2020 Eleven months
13. 2021 Five months
14. 2022 Eleven months
15. 2023 Eight months
16. 2024 Twelve months
17. 2025 Eleven months
18. 2026 Two months till February
29
SPLA No. - 1156 of 2026
55. Hence, the appellants themselves admit that the petitioner-
respondent has worked for ten months in the year 2019, eleven months
in the year 2020, five months in the year 2021, eleven months in the year
2022, eight months in the year 2023, twelve months in the year 2024,
eleven months in the year 2025 and for two months upto February, 2026.
Thus, it is evident that the said plea has been raised solely to deny the
legitimate claim of the petitioner-respondent.
56. Before we part we express our anguish and displeasure in the
manner in which the State-appellants have been contesting the claims of
the poor daily wagers in the Department of Forest, Government of U.P.,
despite the controversy being settled long ago up to the stage of the Apex
Court. Such an act on the part of the State Authorities is not only
arbitrary and illegal but smacks of mala-fides. This is a very highly
reprehensible situation, wherein despite repeated directions of this Court
and the Apex Court, the Forest Department refuses to pay the minimum
pay scale to the daily wagers engaged on one frivilous pretext or the
other.
57. Under these circumstances, both the appeals lack merit and are
hereby dismissed with costs upon the appellant, the same being
quantified to Rs. 1,00,000/-, of which an amount of Rs. 50,000/- shall be
paid to the petitioner-respondent in Special Appeal No. 1156 of 2026 and
the remaining 50,000/- to the petitioner-respondent in Special Appeal
No. 1157 of 2026. Further the costs shall be paid within one month from
the date of this judgment and order.
(Sudhanshu Chauhan,J.) (Saral Srivastava,J.)
October 27, 2026
Gaurav/Nadeem
Digitally signed by :-
GAURAV PATEL
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad