1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.2697/04 Smt. Surta Devi vs. State of Raj. & Ors. Date of order : 22/8/2008. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Shri H.C. Saini for the petitioner. Shri B.L. Avasthi, Addl. Govt. Counsel for the respondent. ****** The writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the prayer that the petitioner is working as Sweeper in the Government Secondary School, Basni since 1983. She was initially paid a sum of Rs.35/- per month, but later on her salary was increased to Rs.150/- per month. When the writ petition was filed in 2004, it was stated that she was not being paid even the salary for last four months. Shri H.C. Saini, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the letter of Headmaster, Government Secondary School, Basni dated 13.1.1998 which inter alia states that the petitioner has been discharging the duties of Sweeper for the last 15 years and that there is a post of part time Class IV vacant in their school 2 and in case the petitioner is selected on that post, he would have no objection. Learned counsel relied on the judgement of this Court in Shri Gopal Sharma & Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors., S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.821/93 decided on 24.2.1993 and connected matters by which 21 identical writ petitions were decided with the direction to respondents to consider the case of daily wages Class IV employee in the Education Department posted in various schools. It was argued that this Court in the aforesaid judgment directed regularisation of their service and therefore similar benefit should also be given to the petitioner. Learned counsel also relied on the judgment of this Court in Smt. Manju Devi vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors., S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1791/02. Shri B.L. Avasthi, learned Additional Government Counsel opposed the writ petition and submitted that the petitioner is required to work only as a Sweeper for half an hour and for that he has been paid Rs.150/- per month. Her working consists of cleaning of school ground, office and the 3 toilet. Initially, she was paid a sum of Rs.75 per month and in the course of time which amount was increased to Rs.150/-. The post of part time employee, which is referred to in the letter of Headmaster, has since been abolished. It was a letter of recommendation but the Headmaster merely expressed his no objection. Petitioner is therefore not entitled to any promotion or regularisation in service. The judgement of this Court in Gopal Sharma, supra relates to the Class IV employee who were working on daily wage basis in various schools of the respondents and was decided in accordance with law then prevalent. The judgement of this Court in Smt. Manju Devi, supra, however was on the point that when a lady Sweeper like the petitioner was working in school since 1988, she was being paid a sum of Rs.200/- per month. In that case too, she was required to do the cleaning work of school building and several toilets. This Court in the aforesaid case observed as under: “Having heard the learned counsel 4 for the parties and perused the material forming part of the record, I find that though there is no regular sanctioned post of Sweeper with the respondents for appointment of a regular Sweeper or for making regular appointment on such posts, but at the same time, it does appear from the facts emerging from the pleadings of the parties that petitioner has been working for the respondents continuously for last 20 years, for such a vast school building which has number of toilets and bathrooms and big play ground and also large number of rooms. The stand of the respondents that doing of the work of cleaning would require only 30 minutes in a day, hardly inspires any confidence. At the same time, the claim of the petitioner for regularisation, when regular sanctioned post of Sweeper is not in existence, cannot be sustained. But then, regardless of the fact that there is no regular sanctioned post and regular appointment on the post of Sweeper and regularisation on such post cannot be made, requiring work of cleaning for such a vast building from a woman belonging to a 5 Scheduled Caste continuously for more than two decades on payment of Rs.250/- per month which initially was Rs.30/- per month and raised to Rs.250/-, is nothing but sheer exploitation of a poor lady by the mighty State. While the State which is expected to be model employer, at least pay to the poor lady, the minimum of the wages as prescribed by the Minimum Wages Act, rather than requiring her to work for a petty sum of Rs.250/- per month. While therefore direction for payment of regular pay scale or regularisation in service cannot be issued, certainly petitioner has made out a case for direction to the respondents to pay to her minimum of the wages for the work of cleaning and sweeping in the school for normal duty hours.” In the aforesaid case the writ petition was allowed in part with direction to the respondents to pay to the petitioner minimum of the wages from the date of filing of the writ petition as notified by the government from time to time. In the result, this writ petition is allowed in part. It is directed that the 6 respondents shall pay minimum wages to the petitioner as notified by the government from time to time from the date of filing of the writ petition, till date and for the future period. It goes without saying that the petitioner shall be required to work for the duration of eight hours to justify the payment aforesaid. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J. RS/