GAJENDRA KUMAR PANDEY Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WE have heard Sri Ram Gopal Tripathi, learned Counsel for the appellant and the learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and also perused the judgment of the Hon'ble Single Judge dated 24- 8-2006 whereby Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 45238 of 2006 of the appellant has been dismissed.

(2.) LEARNED Counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that pursuant to the order dated 29-3-1989 passed by the Secretary, Non Conventional Energy Development Agency, U. P. , Lucknow, the petitioner- appellant was engaged on a sanctioned post of Peon on daily wage basis vide order dated 31-3-1989/1- 4-1989 by the Pariyojna Adhikari, NEDA, Kanpur and since then he is continuously working in Class-IV on daily wage basis. It is further contended that since the post is duly sanctioned and for the last more than 15 years he is working, therefore, he is also entitled to get salary at the minimum of the regular pay scale applicable to Class-IV Employee. The respondents are acting arbitrarily by denying regular pay scale to the appellant and their action is in violation of fundamental right of equal pay for equal work. He further contended that the Hon'ble Single Judge has erred in law by dismissing the writ petition relying on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of U. P. v. Neeraj Awasthi and Ors. , 2006 (1) LBESR 726 (SC) : JT 2006 (1) SC 19, since the aforesaid judgment has no application in his case.

(3.) IT is not in dispute that the petitioner-appellant is being paid minimum wages as prescribed under the Minimum Wages Act. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner-appellant that the petitioner-appellant is entitled for the minimum of the basic pay scale of the regular employee, is unsustainable since a regular pay scale is available to the persons, who are appointed regularly in accordance with the rules and after undergoing regular process of selection consistent with Article 16 of the Constitution of India.