The Court observed that the terms and conditions of service of LHWs/LHSs, prima facie, indicated that they were practically required to adhere to full time engagements to discharge their duties subject to certain other conditions including non-payment of TA/DA and availing maternity and non-maternity leave etc. Additionally, they had to establish Health Houses at their own residences, in respect of which the expenses of utility bills etc. were to be borne by them, for which no reimbursement was permissible.
It was further observed that in a welfare state like ours, it is duty of the government to ensure that discriminatory policies are not applied as far as its employees are concerned, on both those enjoying permanent status or working on contractual basis. The contract, though executed mutually, in pursuance whereof LHWs, LHSs, accountants and drivers have agreed to accept the lesser amount of wages as compared to the minimum one fixed under the provision of law. However, one of the contracting parties, i.e. the government, is not supposed to deprive them from their legitimate rights qua the nature of duties being performed by them. Any agreement, which is against the public policy is not enforcible.
The Court, as an interim measure, directed that employees should get minimum wages of Rs.7,000 per month which must be paid to them regularly according to the Rules and Regulations in the matter. Respondent- Government was directed to work out their actual salary to bring them at par with the employees of the Health Department according to the prevailing rates of scales and wages in the country. On the next date of hearing, the learned Attorney General appeared and stated that necessary steps had been taken to implement the order. He further explained that the wages/stipends of LHWs and LHSs, Accounts Supervisors and drivers, in view of the above decision by the Planning Commission, had been determined and an amount of one billion rupees had been released in that behalf.
H.R. CASES NOS. 16360 OF 2009, 1859-S & 14292-P OF 2010 (P L D 2011 Supreme Court 37)
0 comments:
Post a Comment