STATE OF BIHAR Vs. BIHAR HUMAN RIGHT COMMISSION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I .A. No. 1888 of 2013 has been filed to condone delay of 9 24 -09 -2013 approximately 11 days in filing of the Appeal. Considering the duration and explanation for delay, important questions of law involved, submission of the parties, we condone the delay.

(2.) RESPONDENT no.1, the Bihar Human Rights Commission (hereinafter referred to as the Commission'), has not entered appearance despite valid service of notice. Respondent no.2 entered appearance suo -moto. Notice could not be served on respondent's 3, 4 and5. Subsequently it was directed to be served through respondent no.6. Respondent no.5 then entered appearance. Respondent no.6 stated that no person by the name of respondents 3 and 4 was enrolled with them.

(3.) THE Learned Single Judge held that the Data Entry Operators had been rendering satisfactory services from February 1999 i.e. for more than 12 years. The Commission had opined that the remuneration fixed was low affecting full enjoyment of life and liberty. Article 14 of the Constitution provided for equality and equal protection of the law, Article 21 protects life and personal liberty. Article 39 [d] of the Constitution was akin to Article 7 of the International Covenant on Economic Social and Cultural Rights, 1966. Fixation of wages below that paid in the private sector or that paid to technical workers under the government was exploitation denying living dignified wage as a model employer. Discrimination in payment of remuneration between regularly appointed Data Entry Operators and those on Contract was arbitrary.