OBAIAH Vs. DIRECTOR GENERAL, ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF INDIA,

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for respondents No.1 to 3.

(2.) Admittedly, petitioners were working as casual labourers on daily wage basis from 07.06.1988. The Central Government by Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions (Department of Personnel and Training) has formulated a policy that the status of casual labourer when it was given to a workman, the workman would be entitled to 1/30th of the pay at the minimum of relevant pay scale plus dearness allowance for the work of eight hours in a day. The petitioners are being recruited by the respondents as casual labourers to work at World Heritage Site, Hampi, Bangalore Circle. Respondent No.2, in fact has forwarded the list of petitioners working at World Heritage site at Hampi on 23.05.1914 with a specification of the sanctioned number of posts and the posts being filled up and the casual labourers engaged for the same separately for approving of the scheme for providing 1/30th salary to the casual labourers. On 20.08.2014 an offer letter was given pertaining to 1/30th minimum wages to the casual labourers which was sent to all the petitioners (which is not in dispute) with their posting to the work place, asking the workman to submit the required documents within a period of 15 days if the workman is ready to accept the offer of 1/30th of the minimum wages and to continue under respondent No.1. As per Annexure-G to G114, the offer letters have been accepted by the petitioners and they have also furnished all the documents which are required as per the directions of respondents No.2 and respondent No.3. But respondent No.3 has not actually implemented the offer of 1/30th minimum wages to casual labourers inspite of such acceptance latter and repeated requests and demands of the petitioners. Therefore, the petitioners approached this Court for a direction to the respondents to implement the said offer letter and also the acceptance given by the petitioners herein. The respondent counsel has not virtually denied the above said offer letter and as well as the acceptance letters given by the petitioners herein. However, he has drawn my attention to Annexure-F and Annexure-R1 and submits that the Guidelines of the said Scheme have been issued by respondent No.1 for the purpose of providing said 1/30th minimum wages to the petitioners, but it appears no specific orders have been passed with regard to the acceptance letter submitted by the petitioners herein with regard to the extension of said benefit. There is no specific endorsement issued to any of the parties as to in what manner they are not entitled for the said benefit. Therefore, it is the bounden duty of the respondents to extend the said benefit unless they find that any one of the petitioners is not eligible for the said benefit. Under the above said circumstances, there is no legal impediment to issue directions to the petitioners in the following manner. Hence, the following :