1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.1791/02 Smt. Manju Devi vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. Date of order : 4/7/2008. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Shri Ajay Gupta for the petitioner. Shri S.L. Meena, Dy. Govt. Counsel for the State. ****** Heard learned counsel for the parties. The writ petition has been filed by the petitioner who has been working for the respondents and doing the work of cleaning their school building as a Sweeper. The petitioner is harijan by caste and she belongs to Scheduled Caste. According to the petitioner, she was appointed by the respondents as Sweeper in the year 1988 to do the work of cleaning in Government Upper Primary School No.1, Neem Ka Thana on the consolidated salary of Rs.60/- per month. Her consolidated salary was increased from time and time and lastly it has been raised to Rs.200/- per month. It is contended that school has since been raised to the status of senior secondary level and the school building is having 22 rooms, latrines and 2 bathrooms and a very big playground. The petitioner has to do the cleaning work of all this and has to devote more than 8 hours a day. The respondents are not even giving the minimum wages to the petitioner for the last 20 years. It is argued that petitioner made number of representations to respondents for giving her regular pay scale as also for regularising his services, but when nothing has been done, she has to file the present writ petition. The respondents did not file reply to the writ petition for as many as 6 years, so much so that this Court on 19.5.2008 required the respondents to file the reply within a period of one week, subject to payment of cost of Rs.2,000/- to the petitioner with a further direction that the amount of cost shall be liable to be paid by the Officer-in-charge. Though the reply to the writ petition has been filed but the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that payment of cost has not been made. Even then in the interest of justice, the reply filed by the respondents is considered for the purpose of deciding the writ petition. 3 In the reply, the respondents have come out with the plea that the petitioner was merely working as Sweeper to clean the toilets situated in the school ground and that too in the school days and besides the petitioner, the class IV employees were employed for the purpose of cleaning the class rooms. The contention that the petitioner was the only Sweeper to clean the school was refuted. It is contended that a honorarium of Rs.30/- has been paid to the petitioner, which has now been increased to Rs.250/-. The petitioner is required to work hardly for 30 minutes in a day. The appointment of Class-IV was made only in accordance with the relevant rules and the petitioner was never selected by any regular process. There is no sanctioned post of Sweeper in School. It is contended that since the working hours of the petitioner is 30 minutes a day, she is not entitled to claim minimum wages. It is denied that the petitioner submitted any representation for regularisation, but she merely requested 4 the authorities for increase in the amount of honorarium, which was paid to her time and again. The payment of honorarium to the petitioner was not made from the Government funds, but it was in fact paid to her out of the staff welfare fund. Having heard the learned counsel 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 5 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 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 6 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. The writ petition is accordingly allowed in part. It is directed that the respondents shall pay to the writ petitioner minimum of the wages payable from the date of filing of the writ petition i.e. 13.3.2002 notified from time to time. The arrears of the minimum wages shall be paid to the petitioner within three months along with the amount of cost of Rs.2,000/- as already awarded by this Court in its order dated 19.5.2008. Compliance of the judgement be made within three months form the date copy of this judgement is produced before the respondents. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J. RS/