AMAR RAM V. PRINCIPAL CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

WPSS/1997/2019

AI Insights

The case involves a batch of writ petitions filed by petitioners who were engaged as daily wagers in the Income Tax Department, seeking equal pay and employment conditions as their counterparts who were engaged directly by the Department. The petitioners argued that despite being directly engaged, they were not paid minimum wages, unlike other casual workers who were engaged through outsourcing. The court examined the issue of discrimination in wage payment and the legality of changing the employment status of the petitioners from direct engagement to outsourcing. The court found that the respondents could not discriminate against the petitioners based on the year of engagement and that the change to outsourcing was impermissible in law.

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 761583 (HC-UTTARAKHAND)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 13-10-2020
• Assessment Year: misc
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: HARI MOHAN BHATIA
• Assessee Lawyers: ANIL KUMAR DABRAL
• Keywords: Minimum wages; Outsourcing; Writ of Certiorari; Writ of Mandamus; Casual Workers; Dying Cadre; Group-D Employees

Judgement Text

"IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 1997 (S/S) of 2019 Amar Ram and others .....… Petitioners Versus Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax and another ….. Respondents With Writ Petition No. 1993 (S/S) of 2019 Pankaj Singh Brijwal and others ….. Petitioners Versus Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax and another ….. Respondents Writ Petition No. 1994 (S/S) of 2019 Narendra Singh Bisht and others ….. Petitioners Versus Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax and another ….. Respondents Mr. Anil Kumar Dabral, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Hari Mohan Bhatia, Advocate for the respondents. Hon’ble Lok Pal Singh, J. The present petitions have been filed by the petitioners seeking following reliefs:- “(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 09.04.2019 passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Haldwani, District Nainital. (ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the respondents to make payment to the petitioners as per the Instruction/Direction dated 30.07.2019. 2 (iii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the respondents to pay salary to the petitioners to the tune as the similarly situated daily wagers are getting pursuant to the order dated 29.12.2017.” 2. In batch of petitions, the common question of facts and law are involved. Thus the batch of petitions is being decided by this common judgment and order. 3. The facts leading to the present case are that the petitioners were engaged as daily wagers from 2002 to 2010. The petitioners are working under the administrative control of Principal Commissioner Income Tax, Haldwani and they are discharging their duties as Peon and Watchman respectively. Since their initial appointment to the utmost satisfaction of the superior authorities, their services were not regularized. The Central Board of District Taxes issued instructions to all the Chief Commissioners of Income Tax/Director General of Income Tax vide order dated 09.05.2013 that the post of Peon and Watchman (Group-D) is declared as dying cadre. Therefore, the work for the post of Peon and Watchman should be taken by the casual workers through outsourcing agency. 4. The grievance of the petitioners is that they are discharging their duties as peon and watchman respectively but they are not being paid the minimum wages. The similarly situated persons those who were engaged directly by the Department, they are being paid the minimum wages. The petitioners were also engaged by the department directly as daily wagers, but they are not being paid the minimum wages. Those daily wagers who were engaged prior to 2013, they are being paid minimum wages and are getting an amount of Rs.16,300/- per month, whereas the petitioners who were engaged by the Department directly are getting approximately Rs.7,000/- per month, less than the minimum wages. 3 Instructions dated 23.10.2018 were issued, whereby office order dated 13.05.2013 has been withdrawn. All the CCITs / DGITs have been directed to immediately ensure compliance of order dated 23.10.2018. In view of letter dated 23.10.2018, the respondents have started to engage the petitioners through outsourcing ignoring the fact that the petitioners were directly engaged by the Department as casual workers. Thus, the department has no authority to change the status of the petitioners by engaging them through outsourcing. 5. Petitioners, who were similarly engaged by the Department directly, were not being paid minimum of wages whereas similarly situated casual workers are being paid the minimum wages. The contention of respondents is that subsequently large numbers of casual workers have been engaged through outsourcing and they will also claim the same benefit. 6. Having considered the submission of learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of record, this Court is of the view that the petitioners were engaged in 2013 and some causal workers were engaged prior to 2013 directly by the Department, therefore, merely on the ground that the petitioners were engaged in 2013, the criteria of payment of minimum wages cannot be changed. It is apt to note here that the petitioners and those casual workers who were engaged prior to 2013 had a common similarity i.e. these sets of casual workers were directly engaged by the Department. Thus, for the reason that they were engaged after 2013, they cannot be denied payment of minimum wages and they cannot be compelled to serve them through outsourcing. The decision of changing the service conditions of the petitioners that they shall be engaged through outsourcing is impermissible in law. In so far those causal 4 workers, who have been engaged through outsourcing, they have no similarity with the petitioners. 7. The respondents cannot discriminate with the petitioner in the guise that after 2013, the Group D cadre has been declared as dying cadre. Be that as it may, the respondents cannot deny the same wages to the petitioner. 8. Therefore, all the writ petitions are disposed of with the direction to the respondents to continue the petitioners as casual workers in the Department as they were directly engaged by the Department and they shall be paid minimum of wages as were being paid to similarly engaged daily wagers who were engaged prior to 2013. The petitioners are not entitled for regularization of their services as the Department has not framed any regularization policy. In case, the Department chooses to frame regularization policy for casual workers (Group ‘D’ employees) in future, the petitioners will be at liberty to raise their claim. It is made clear that those who have been engaged through outsourcing will not be entitled to the benefit of this judgment. 9. The present writ petitions are disposed of with the direction that the respondents shall consider the case of the petitioners for their employment as daily wages casual workers and they shall be paid minimum wages/salary equal to those employees who are working as daily wages casual workers in the said department. 10. In view of the above discussions, the present petitions stand disposed of. (Lok Pal Singh, J.) 13.10.2020 Ravi "