JUDGMENT Sunil Ambwani, J.
1. Heard Sri Prakash Padia for petitioner end learned Standing Counsel for respondents.
2. It is admitted in the counter affidait that the petitioner Smt. Chhako Devi was appointed as Part; Time Cook. after interview by Departmental Selection Committee, by the then Chief Medical Officer, Varanasi on 21.12.1987 on consolidated pay of Rs. 350/-per month, and that since then she is working regularly. Dr. M.G. Singh, Deputy Chief Medical Officer, Varanasi, however, in his counter affidavit dated 5.5.2003 has disputed! the fact that the petitioner is working on full time basis and they her pay could not be revised as the Stale Government has not revised the salary of part time cooks Fixed by the Government Order dated 15.1.1986 which has been annexed as annexure-CA-2
3. A perusal of the Government Order dated 15.1.1986;shows ; that by this order the Joint Secreitary.Health and Deputy .project Coordinator,! Government of U.P. had communicated to the Project1 Director and Family Welfare Offieer-II. National Census Project, Lucknow, with the sanctioned posts and the pay scales applicable in the project In the present case, the petitioner has been appointed and working in the District Hospital. varanasi. She has not been appointed in any project, nor the appointing order makes any reference to any such project or fixed terms in the condition of her appointment. The reference to the Government Order dated 15.1.1986 is clearly misplaced.
3. The petitioner has prayed for a direction to regularise her services as full time employee and to pay salary to her in the regular pay scale of class IV employees. Sri Padia has relied upon the judgment of this. Court in Smt. Awadhrani v. Director of Education (Bask) and Ors. (Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 2646 of 2002 decided on 24.1.2002), in which it was held that the payment on a less than minimum wages fixed by the State Government for it employees is violative of Article 23 of the Constitution of India.
4. In Peoples Union of Democratic Rights and Ors. v. Union of India ; Sanjit Roy v. State of Rajasthan, and Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India and Ors., , it was held payment of less, than minimum wages not only violates Convention No, 105 of International Labour Organization 1957, which had expanded the definition of forced labour and Article 4 of Europeon Conversion of Human Rights and Article 8 of International Covenation on. civil and political rights, but is also violative of Article 23 of the Constitution of India, which prohibits 'begar' in any form.
5. In the present case, there are clear averments in paragraph 25 that the petitioner is working on full time basis. The reply given the counter affidavit does not give the number of hours, and the nature of work performed by the petitioner. nor there is any reference to any Government Order or Fundamental Rules which may provide forany part time employment with the State Government A cook District Hospital caering to indoor patients performs a full time job The Chief Medical Officer referred the petitione representation to the State Government on which the Director General, Medical and Health, .Government.of U.P. expressed his inability to increase the salary; He avoided any decision In i matter, in. his letter dated 25.2.2002 sent to the Chief Medical Officer, Varansi.
6. The petitioner has a fundamental right under Article 23 of the Constitution of India to be paid minimum wages fixed by the State Government for its employees on the recommendation of the Pay Commissions. At present all Class-IV employees of the State Government are getting minimum pay in the tine scale of Rs. 2550-.3200 and admissible allowance. Any employee appointed, after selections, on as sanctioned class IV post, cannot be paid less than minimum of the pay fixed by the State Government. In the present case it is established on record that the petitioner was appointod on a sanctioned post, after Selection, and: is working on full time basis. The nomenclature of the job as 'part.time:employment' is only to deprive her of minimum pay, not only violates Article 14 and 16 but also Article 23 of the Constitution of India which prohibits begar in any form
7. The writ petition is consequently allowed. The petitioner is held entitled to the minimum pay , scale along wish all other allowances payable to a class IV employee of the State Government.Since she had made the first demand by making a representation on 3.9.1997, she will be entitled to the minimum pay and allowances with effect from 3.9.1997, The entire arrears worked out on the basis of minimum pay and allowances paid to the class IV employees w.e.f, 3.9.1997, shall be paid to her within three The petitioner shall also be entitled to costs of the writ petition.