1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.2439 OF 1994 Dulaji s/o Rama Bangewar, died, through his legal heirs: 1 Babu Dulaji Bangewar, age: 20 years, Occ: Education, R/o Dhanora (Ada), Tq.Hadgaon, District Nanded. 2 Shivram Dulaji Bangewar, age: 30 years, Occ: Labour, 3 Pandit Dulaji Bangewar, age: 27 years, Occ: Labour; 4 Maroti Dulaji Bangewar, age: 25 years, Occ: Labour; 5 Laxmibai Dulaji Bangewar, age: 60 years, Occ: Labour. Petitioners Versus 1 The Head Master, Primary School, Dhanora, Tq.Hadgaon, District Nanded. 2 Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Nanded. 3 The Education Officer (Primary), Zilla Parishad, Nanded. 4 The Dy. Director of Education, Office of Dy.Director of Education, Near Deogiri College, Aurangabad. 2 5 The Secretary, School Education Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai. 6 The State of Maharashtra Respondents Mr.V.D.Patnoorkar, advocate for the petitioners. Mr.G.R.Ingole Patil, advocate for Respondents No.2 & 3. Mr.N.B.Patil, A.G.P. For Respondents No.4, 5 and 6. CORAM: B.R.GAVAI AND S.V.GANGAPURWALA, JJ. DATE : 14 th July, 2010. ORAL JUDGMENT (Per B.R.Gavai, J.): 1 The petitioner has filed present petition praying for writ of mandamus directing the Respondents to regularise services of the petitioner as a Peon by giving all the benefits including permanency. 2 During pendency of the petition, the petitioner had expired and as such, petitioner’s legal heirs have been brought on record. According to the petitioner, the petitioner was working as a Peon in the primary school, Dhanora run by the Zilla Parishad, Nanded, since 1964 and that he worked till 31.10.1995. It is the contention of the petitioner that the petitioner was paid an amount of Rs.80/- per month towards the salary. 3 An affidavit-in-reply has been filed on behalf of the Respondents. It has been stated on behalf of Respondents specifically in paragraph 4 that the petitioner was working between 2.00 p.m. to 6.00 p.m. 3 The nature of the work allotted to the petitioner was to sweep the school, fill up drinking water, to dispatch postal documents and to remain present on the occasion of flag hoisting with the Head Master. 4 Thus, it is seen that, according to the Respondents, the petitioner was working as a part time Peon. However, it is stated that the petitioner was getting Rs.80/- per month from `Akasmit Nidhi’ (Suspension fund). Relying on the Government Resolution dated 6 th July, 2005, it is stated that since the petitioner was not a permanent employee, he is not entitled to the benefits of revised pay scale. 5 It, thus, appears to be an admitted position that the petitioner was in fact working in the school run by Respondent No.3. No doubt that nothing has been placed on record to establish that the petitioner was a regular employee, however, at the same time, Respondents have themselves admitted that he was working in the school. It is also an admitted position that the petitioner was being paid an amount of Rs.80/- per month and that he was paid an amount of Rs.6900/- towards the arrears. 6 Article 43 mandates the State to secure, by a suitable legislation, to provide for living based wages to all workers. In view of the mandate of Article 43, the Parliament has enacted the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. The State Governments, by Notifications issued from time to time, have specified the minimum wages in respect of various establishments. An amount of Rs.80/- per month, in the year 1995 also, cannot be said to be sufficient enough so as to provide a decent living. The Respondent No.3 is an organ of the State and, therefore, it is supposed to act as a model employer. It cannot be expected to indulge into exploitation of a human being. 4 7 In that view of the matter, we allow the petition by directing Respondent No.3 to pay arrears to the petitioners by treating the petitioner an unskilled worker at the rate of minimum wages provided by the State Government in the Notifications issued from time to time between 1965 to 1995. The arrears worked out on the basis of same shall be paid to the petitioners within a period of three months from today. 8 Rule is made absolute on above terms. However, there shall be no order as to costs. (S.V.GANGAPURWALA) (B.R.GAVAI) JUDGE JUDGE ******* adb/wp243994