Allahabad High Court
RAM DEVversusTHE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER RENUKOOT AND OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- ANISH KUMAR GUPTA
Holding
The petition is dismissed as the petitioner is not eligible for regularisation or the minimum pay scale.
Summary
The petitioner, Ram Dev, a daily wager in the Forest Department since 1976, filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus directing the respondents to pay him the minimum salary applicable to Class‑IV employees in Uttar Pradesh. The respondents contended that daily labourers are not entitled to minimum wages and that the petitioner had not worked since 1987, citing a Supreme Court decision (Putilal case) and the 2001 Minimum Wages Rules to argue he was ineligible for regularisation. The petitioner did not file a rejoinder to these averments. The court accepted the respondents' version, held that the petitioner was not eligible for regularisation or the minimum pay scale, and dismissed the petition. The case was ordered to be delinked from other matters and not shown in the cause list.
Issues considered
- Whether a daily wager employed by the Forest Department since 1976 is entitled to the minimum wage prescribed for Class‑IV employees in Uttar Pradesh.
- Whether the petitioner is eligible for regularisation under the applicable rules.
- Whether the respondents are liable to pay the petitioner the minimum salary by way of a mandamus.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- minimum wage
- daily wager
- regularisation
- Forest Department
- mandamus
- writ petition
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - A No. - 66192 of 2010
Ram Dev
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
The Divisional Forest Officer Renukoot And
Others .....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Ganesh Prajapati
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C. S. C.
Court No. - 34
(Sl.No.49.6)
HON'BLE ANISH KUMAR GUPTA, J.
1. None appears for the petitioner. Sri Pradeepta Kumar Shahi, learned
Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State is present.
2. The instant petition has been filed with the following prayer:
"issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the
respondents to pay minimum salary to the petitioners which is applicable in the State
of U.P. for Class-IV employees."
3. The claim of the petitioner is that he was working since 1976 as daily
wager in the Forest Department and was still continuing. As such he has
prayed for grant of minimum pay scale.
3. In para-5 of the counter affidavit, the following averments have been
made by the respondents:
"5. यह िक याची से किन्ष िकसी भी दैिनक मजदूर को न्यूनतम् वेतन /मजदूरी नहीं दी जा रही
है। याची ्षारा वषर् 1987 में स्वतः कायर् करना छोड़ िदया गया तथा 2000 तक दैिनक ्शिमक
के रूप में कोई कायर् नहीं िकया गया। इस ्ऺकार वषर् 1991 के प्ाात् लगातार 10 वषर् कायर्
नहीं करने के कारण पु्तीलाल के केस में माननीय उच्चतम् न्यायालय ्षारा ्ऺितपािदत ्िवस्था
तथा उ०्ऺ० समूह "घ" के पदो पर दैिनक वेतन ्शिमकों का िविनयिमतीकरण िनयमावली
2001 के ्ऺािवधानों के अनुसार िविनयिमतीकरण / न्यूनतम् वेतन के पा्ऴ नहीं हैं। "
WRIA No. 66192 of 2010
2
4. The aforesaid averments as made in the counter affidavit has not been
rebutted by the petitioner by filing any rejoinder affidavit despite the
counter affidavit was filed on 21.05.2011.
5. In such view of the matter, it is presumed that the petitioner has nothing
to say about the averments made in paragraph-5. Accordingly the
petitioner was not eligible for regularization. Consequently, he was not
entitled for minimum pay scale.
4. Accordingly the instant petition is dismissed.
5. Let this case be delinked from bunch matters and shall not be shown in
the cause list.
(Anish Kumar Gupta,J.)
May 12, 2026
Ashish Pd.
Digitally signed by :-
ASHISH PRASAD
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…