1 2026:CGHC:18060 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 5118 of 2022 * - Kiskinda Nareti W/o Surendra Nareti Aged About 35 Years Working As Cook At Govt. Middle School Farasgaon Block And Tah. Farasgaon, R/o Village Farasgaon, District- Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner Versus 1 - Union Of India Through The Secretary, Ministry Of Human Resources Development, Department Of School Education And Literacy, Mid Day Meal Division, Shashtri Bhawan New Delhi. 2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Education Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 3 - The Secretary Department Of Finance Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralay, Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 4 - The Director School Education Directorate School Education, Shiksha Parisar, Pension Bada, Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 5 - District Education Officer District Kondagaon, Office Of District Education, Thana And Tahsil Kondagaon District Kondagaon Chhattisgarh. 6 - Block Education Officer Block Office At Farasgaon District Kondagaon Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents For Petitioner : Ms. Gyatri Sahu, Advocate holding the brief of Mr. N.K. Malviya, Advocate For Respondent No. 1 For Respondents No. 2 to 6 : : Mr. Abhishek Banjare, Central Government Counsel Mr. Abhyuday Tripathi, Panel Lawyer Digitally signed by RAMESH KUMAR VATTI Date: 2026.04.22 18:50:38 +0530 2 Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 21/04/2026 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is working on the post of Cook in the Government Middle School, Kisinda, Block- Farasgaon, District Kondagaon and she is being paid only Rs.1200/ per month i.e. Rs.40/ per day, whereas, according to the schedule Annexure P/2, minimum wages prescribed by the Chhattisgarh Minimum Wage, he is entitled for Rs.306.67/ per day. He would rely upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of State of Punjab & Ors. vs. Jagjit Singh & Ors., decided on 26th October, 2016 in which the Supreme Court has held that the principle of equal pay for equal work will apply to all the temporary employees and held as under: “54. There is no room for any doubt, that the principle of 'equal pay for equal work' has emerged from an interpretation of different provisions of the Constitution. The principle has been expounded through a large number of judgments rendered by this Court, and constitutes law declared by this Court. The same is binding on all the courts in India, under Article 141 of the Constitution of India. The parameters of the principle, have been summarized by us in paragraph 42 hereinabove. The principle of 'equal pay for equal work' has also been extended to temporary employees (differently described as work charge, dailywage, casual adhoc, contractual, and the like). The legal position, relating to temporary employees, has been summarized by us, in paragraph 44 hereinabove. The above legal position which has been repeatedly declared, is being reiterated by us, yet again”. 2. In view of the above, respondent No.2 is directed to consider the representation of the petitioner in the light of aforesaid judgment of the Supreme Court within 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy 3 of this order and to pass a reasoned order in accordance with law on its own merit. The petitioner is at liberty to make an additional representation, if any. 3. With the aforesaid direction, the writ petition stands finally disposed off. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge vatti