HIGH COURT OF UTTARANCHAL AT NAINITAL (Court’s order whether the case is or not approved for reporting.) (Chapter VII Rule 32 (2) (b) Description of the case. W.P. No. 3610 of 2001 (S/S) Magan Singh & another Vs. State of U.P. & Others. Approved for reporting. ____________________ Not approved for reporting Date of decision 29.06.2004 Initial of Judge IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARANCHAL AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 3610 of 2001 (S/S) Magan Singh & another ………. Petitioners Versus State of U.P. & others ………. Respondents Mr. P.C. Jhingan, learned Advocate for the petitioners. Learned Standing Counsel for the State. Writ Petition No. 5777 of 2001 (S/S) Leela Dhar …………Petitioner Vs State of Uttar Pradesh ………..Respondents Writ Petition No. 2886 of 2001 (S/S) Swaroop Chand Ramloa …………Petitioner Vs State of U. P and others ………..Respondents Writ Petition No. 1795 of 2001 (S/S) Mangal Singh …………Petitioner Vs State of U. P. and others ………..Respondents Writ Petition No. 6287 of 2001 (S/S) Raghubeer Singh Bist ………Petitioner Vs State of U.P. and others ………..Respondents Writ Petition No.6157 of 2001 (S/S) Murti …………Petitioner Vs State of U.P. and others ………..Respondents Writ Petition No. 1701 of 2001 (S/S) Sabla Ram and anothers …………Petitioner Vs State of U.P. and others ………..Respondents Writ Petition No.3613 of 2001 (S/S) Devendra Kumar Mishra and anothers ……Petitioner Vs State of U.P. and others ………..Respondents Writ Petition No. 6002 of 2001 (S/S) Khushi Ram …………Petitioner Vs State of U.P. and others ………..Respondents Writ Petition No. 6338 of 2001 (S/S) Bachan Singh …………Petitioner Vs State of U.P. and others ………..Respondents Writ Petition No. 345 of 2001 (S/S) Khushi Ram …………Petitioner Vs State of U.P. and others ………..Respondents Writ Petition No. 384 of 2001 (S/S) Bhagwan Singh …………Petitioner Vs State of U.P. and others ………..Respondents Writ Petition No. 3611 of 2001 (S/S) Surat Singh …………Petitioner Vs State of U.P. and others ………..Respondents Writ Petition No. 2487 of 2001 (S/S) Rajendra Singh Pawar …………Petitioner Vs State of U.P. & others ………..Respondents Writ Petition No. 1946 of 2001 (S/S) Chandan Singh Vist …………Petitioner Vs State of U.P. and others ………..Respondents Writ Petition No.508 of 2001 (S/S) Prem Singh …… Petitioner Vs State of U.P. and others …… Respondents Writ Petition No. 3980 of 2001 (S/S) Jayendra Prasad …… Petitioner Vs State of U.P. and others ……. Respondents Writ Petition No. 506 of 2001 (S/S) Vikaram Singh …… Petitioner Vs State of U.P. and others ….. Respondents Writ Petition No. 531 of 2002 (S/B) Shankar …………Petitioner Vs State of Uttaranchal & others ………..Respondents Writ Petition No. 6005 of 2001 (S/S) Jeet Singh …………Petitioner Vs State of U.P. and others ………..Respondents Writ Petition No. 5547 of 2001 (S/S) Girish Chandra Kala …………Petitioner Vs State of Uttaranchal and Others ………..Respondents Writ Petition No. 6001 of 2001 (S/S) Buddi Singh …………Petitioner Vs State of U.P. and others ………..Respondents Writ Petition No. 377 of 2001 (S/S) Jai Prakash …………Petitioner VS State of Uttar Pradesh And others. ………..Respondents Writ Petition No. 5917 of 2001 (S/S) Mahaveer Singh Negi …… Petitioner Vs State of U.P. and others ….. Respondents Writ Petition No. 6006 of 2001 (S/S) Suresh Chandra …………Petitioner Vs State of Uttaranchal And others ………..Respondents Writ Petition No. 507 of 2001 (S/S) Manohar Lal …… Petitioner Vs State of U.P. and others ….. Respondents Writ Petition No. 391 of 2001 (S/S) Ramesh …… Petitioner Vs State of U.P. and others ….. Respondents Writ Petition No. 3993 of 2001 (S/S) Awatar Singh …… Petitioner Vs State of U.P. and others ….. Respondents Writ Petition No. 6004 of 2001 (S/S) Shiv Prasad …… Petitioner Vs State of U.P. and others ….. Respondents Writ Petition No. 392 of 2001 (S/S) Puran Singh …… Petitioner Vs State of U.P. and others ….. Respondents Writ Petition No. 338 of 2001 (S/S) Suraj Lal …… Petitioner Vs State of U.P. and others ….. Respondents Writ Petition No. 2241 of 2001 (S/S) Siyaram …… Petitioner Vs State of U.P. and others ….. Respondents Writ Petition No. 2077 of 2001 (S/S) Anil Kumar Pawar …… Petitioner Vs State of U.P. and others ….. Respondents Writ Petition No. 2190 of 2001 (S/S) Roshan Das …… Petitioner Vs State of U.P. and others ….. Respondents Writ Petition No. 5518 of 2001 (S/S) Dariya …… Petitioner Vs State of U.P. and others ….. Respondents Writ Petition No. 387 of 2001 (S/S) Gendan Lal Kandwal …… Petitioner Vs State of U.P. and others ….. Respondents Writ Petition No. 741 of 2002 (S/B) Bachan Singh …… Petitioner Vs State of U.P. and others ….. Respondents Writ Petition No. 95 of 2003 (S/S) Surat Singh …… Petitioner Vs State of Uttaranchal And others ….. Respondents Writ Petition No. 1329 of 2002 (S/B) Dayal Singh …… Petitioner Vs State of Uttaranchal ….. Respondents Writ Petition No. 1269 of 2002 (S/B) Vijay Pal Singh …… Petitioner Vs State of Uttaranchal & others ….. Respondents Writ Petition No. 551 of 2003 (S/S) Dara …… Petitioner Vs State of Others ….. Respondents Writ Petition No. 596 of 2003 (S/S) Indra Singh …… Petitioner Vs State of U.P. and others ….. Respondents Writ Petition No. 1637 of 2002 (S/B) Rama Nand Chamoli …… Petitioner Vs State of Uttaranchal & others ….. Respondents Writ Petition No. 240 of 2004 (S/S) Munna Sing Goasin …… Petitioner Vs State of Uttaranchal & others ….. Respondents Writ Petition No. 9 T-A of 2000 Kishan Singh …… Petitioner Vs State of U.P. and others ….. Respondents Writ Petition No. 3607 of 2001 (S/S) Ram Bharosey Dhobhal …… Petitioner Vs State of U.P. and others ….. Respondents Writ Petition No. 733 of 2002 (S/B) Rakesh Kandwal …… Petitioner Vs State of Uttaranchal & others ….. Respondents Writ Petition No. 911 of 2002 (S/B) Bhajan Singh …… Petitioner Vs State of Uttaranchal & others ….. Respondents Writ Petition No. 3450 of 2001 (S/S) Dil Bahadur …… Petitioner Vs State of Uttaranchal & others ….. Respondents Writ Petition No. 2732of 2001 (S/S) Jeet Singh …… Petitioner Vs State of U.P. and others ….. Respondents Writ Petition No. 1724of 2001 (S/S) Karigaru …… Petitioner Vs State of U.P. and others ….. Respondents Writ Petition No. 3602of 2001 (S/S) Vijay Ram Joshi …… Petitioner Vs State of U.P. and others ….. Respondents Writ Petition No. 349 of 2001 (S/S) Bhagwan Singh …… Petitioner Vs State of U.P. and others ….. Respondents Writ Petition No. 900 of 2003 (S/S) Harak Bahadur …… Petitioner Vs State of Uttaranchal & others ….. Respondents Writ Petition No. 597 of 2003 (S/S) Rajendra Yadav …… Petitioner Vs State of U.P. and others ….. Respondents Writ Petition No. 5082 of 2001 (S/S) Kirtimani …… Petitioner Vs State of U.P. and others ….. Respondents Writ Petition No. 6003of 2001 (S/S) Lal Bahadur & others …… Petitioner Vs State of U.P. and others ….. Respondents Writ Petition No. 5081of 2001 (S/S) Bhumi Singh …… Petitioner Vs State of U.P. and others ….. Respondents Writ Petition No. 3212 of 2001 (S/S) Rajan Singh Pundeer …………Petitioner Vs State of Uttaranchal & others ………..Respondents Writ Petition No. 3554 of 2001 (S/S) Pitri Prasad …………Petitioner Vs State of U.P. and others ………..Respondents Writ Petition No. 106 of 2003 (S/B) Balam Singh …………Petitioner Vs State of U.P. and others ………..Respondents Dated: 29/06/2004 Hon’ble Rajesh Tandon,J. This bunch of writ petitions rasises common question of law and fact, therefore, they are being heard and disposed of together by this common judgment. For the sake of convenience, we are mentioning the facts in writ petition No. 3610 of 2001 (S/S). By the present writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to treat the petitioners to be a regular employee of Class IV in the services of the State Government from the date of their initial appointment. A further prayer has been made for a writ of mandamus to command the respondents to make the payment of difference of back wages to the petitioners. Brief facts giving rise to the present writ petition are that the petitioners have been working in the Forest Department as Chowkidar since 1.2.1989. According to the petitioners, the nature of duties of the petitioners is the same and similar to that the regularly appointed employees of their category in the Forest Department of U.P. Govt. and there is no difference either in the nature of duties or in the quantum of work. Therefore, it is stated by the petitioners that the doctrine of ‘Equal pay of Equal work’ is fully attracted to the case of the petitioners and they are entitled to at least minimum of the pay scale of their post, which are being paid to their counterparts in the Forest Department of the State Government. It is further stated by the petitioners that they are fully entitled to be regularized in service on the Class III/IV post in the Forest Department of the Government of U.P. Petitioners have referred the judgment in writ petition No. 32992 of 1995 and others, wherein, Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.R. Singh has directed the respondents to pay wages equivalent to the minimum pay in the scale of pay admissible to the regularly appointed employees of their category in the Department. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of State of U.P., in which it has been stated that in the same and similar facts and circumstances the Bench consisting of Hon’ble Chief Justice and Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.A.Sharma, have delivered a judgment dated December 10, 1997 in Special Appeal No. 653 of 1995 State of U.P. Vs Putti Lal along with bunch of hundreds of others cases. The Hon’ble Court has finally disposed of all the cases of the same and similar nature with a direction to the State to appoint a committee consisting of Secretaries of Finance & Forest Department and Legal Remembrancer or their nominees, within a month of production of certified copy of the judgment before the Secretary, Forest Department, U.P. Government. Learned counsel for the petitioners has are referred the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of State of U.P. Vs Putti Lal reported in 2002D(1) E.L.C. 524 (S.C). It was also a case of daily wagers of Forest Department. The Apex Court has held as under: “So far as State of Uttaranchal is concerned, a scheme for regularisation of daily workers has been produced before us which prima facie does not appear to be objectionable excepting the provisions regarding qualification for regularisation. Be it stated that the qualification essential for being regularized would be the qualification as was relevant on the date of particular employee was taken in as a daily wager and not the qualification, which is being fixed under the Scheme. The fact that the employees have been allowed to continue for so many years indicates the existence or the necessity for having such posts. But still it would not be open for the court to indicate as to how many posts would be created for the absorption of these daily wage workers. Needless to mention that the appropriate authority will consider the case of these daily wagers sympathetically who have discharged the duties for all these years to the satisfaction of their authority concerned. So far as the salary is concerned as we have stated in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh, a daily wager in the State of Uttaranchal would also be entitled to the minimum of the pay scale as is available to his counter parts to in the Government until his services are regularised and he is given regular scale of pay.” After the judgment of the Apex Court, Uttaranchal Government has framed Recruitment Rules of 2003 in accordance with the directions of the Apex Court known as Regularisation (On Group ‘D’ Posts) of Daily Wagers Appointment Rules, 2003. The criteria for regularisation has been mentioned under Rule 4(1), which reads as under: “(1) Any person who: a. Was directly appointed on daily wage basis on a Group ‘D’ post in the Forest Department under Government Service before June 29, 1991 and is continuing in service as such on the date of commencement of these rules; and b. Possessed requisite qualifications prescribed for regular appointment for that post at the time of such appointment on daily wage basis under the relevant service rules, shall be considered for regular appointment in permanent or temporary vacancy, as may be available in the Forest Department in Group ‘D’ post, on the date of commencement of these rules on the basis of his record and suitability before any regular appointment is made in such vacancy in accordance with the relevant service rules or orders.” The Division Bench of this court in a bunch of writ petitions [283 (S/B) of 2002 and others] has passed the following order on 15- 5-2002. It reads as under:- “All the aforementioned writ petitioners involve common question of law and in these similar relief of regularization in the forest department has been claimed. These writ petitions are, therefore, taken up together and disposed of by a common judgment. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned C.S.C. The petitioners claim themselves to be the daily wage employees in the forest department and covered by the decision given by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 3634 of 1998 state of U.P. and others Vs. Putti Lal. Learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned C.S.C. agree that direction may be given to the respondents to consider the case of these petitioners in the light of the said judgment of the apex court and those of the petitioners who are covered by the said decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court be regularized and minimum of pay of also paid to them until their services are regularized. Let the necessary exercise be done within a period of six weeks.” In the light of the aforesaid facts, the respondents are directed to consider the regularisation of the petitioners in accordance with the Judgment of Apex Court in the case of Putti Lal (Supra) as well as in accordance with the recruitment Rules mentioned above. In view of the facts and circumstances mentioned above, the petitioners shall be at liberty to move fresh representation within three weeks after obtaining certified copy of the order. The respondents are directed to consider the representations of the petitioners for regularisation in accordance with the qualification, other eligibility criteria and in accordance with the recruitment rules, within a period of six weeks after filing the representation. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petitions are allowed. No order as to costs. (Rajesh Tandon, J.) Dt.29.6.2004 G