URMILA DEVI Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner, who is a female attendant (Dai) with the prayer to issue writ of mandamus directing the respondents to regularise the services of the petitioner as IVth class employee (Dai) in Primary School (East) Sirsa, District Allahabad with further prayer to pay differences of arrears of salary since July, 1989 to June, 2002 and to pay the arrears of salary since July, 2002 till date.

(2.) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was engaged as Dai (class-IV) employee in Primary School (East), Sirsa, District Allahabad on 13.12.1981. Initially salary was as Rs.20 per month and thereafter, since 1983 she was paid as Rs.30 per month. From 1988 to June 2002 salary has been paid @ 150 per month and from July 2002 the salary has been stopped without any reason. In the year 1988 the petitioner filed an application under section 33-C-2 of the U.P. Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 for the relief for payment of differences of salary on the post held by her, which was allowed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court by order dated 2.6.1989 directing the respondents to pay difference of salary to the petitioner within a period of three months, which was to the tune of Rs.48,609/-, annexure 1 to the writ petition. When the amount was not paid then an application under section 6(H)-I read with Rule 33 of the U.P. Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 was moved for recovery of the amount awarded by the labour court. The recovery certificate was issued. After the recovery certificate was issued a restoration application was filed on behalf of the respondent no.2, District Basic Education Officer, Allahabad and he denied appointment of the petitioner. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, by order dated 29.8.2003 rejected the restoration on merit after considering the objection raised by respondent no.2. The aforesaid order was not challenged before any competent court hence the same has become final. Subsequently, from July, 2002 the respondent no.2, stopped payment even minimum payment of salary, to the petitioner i.e. Rs.150/- per month though she continued to work on her post. He also submitted that payment of salary to the petitioner was made through Bank since 16.8.1983. As per government order dated 7.10.1998 the salary to the class IV employees, peon/dai, has been revised by the government. The pay scale from Rs.740 to 940 was revised to 2550-3200. The petitioner is working as Dai since 1981 though any written appointment letter was not issued. She has rendered the service for a long period without any complaint hence petitioner is entitled to be regularised and the direction be issued for payment of differences as awarded by the labour court as well as full salary, which was revised, in view of the government order dated 7.10.1998.