1 2026:CGHC:2524 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Order Reserved on : 19.12.2025 Order Delivered on : 15.01.2026 WPS No. 8924 of 2023 Chaitram Markam S/o Nadiram Markam Aged About 38 Years Working As Cook At Govt. Primary School Keradih Block Bade Rajpur R/o Village Keradih Tahsil And Block Baderajpur, 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, Mantralaya, 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 Kondagon, District : Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh 6 - Block Education Officer Block Office At Bade Rajpur, District : Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh --- Respondents YOGESH TIWARI Digitally signed by YOGESH TIWARI Date: 2026.01.15 18:55:25 +0530 2 (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. N. K. Malviya, Advocate For Respondent No.1 : Ms. Deeksha Pandey, CGC on behalf of Mr. Ramakant Mishra, DSGI For Respondents No.2 to 6 : Mr. Dashrath Prajapati, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge CAV Order 1. Heard Mr. N.K. Malviya, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. Deeksha Pandey, learned Central Government Counsel on behalf of Mr. Ramakant Mishra, learned Deputy Solicitor General appearing for respondent No.1/Union of India as well as Mr. Dashrath Prajapati, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State/respondents No.2 to 6. 2. By filing the instant petition, the petitioner has sought for following relief(s) :- “The Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to issue the appropriate writ/writs/direction/directions/order/orders to Respondents a. That in the interest of justice Hon’ble court may kindly be pleased to quash the both impugned order / communication dtd. 22.7.23 and 10.2.23 are annexed as Annexure P-1 and P-2 3 b. Further, may kindly be pleased to suitably direct the Respondents to pay the respectable minimum wages as declared by the State of Chhattisgarh along with Dearness to the petitioner. c. Any other relief, order/direction may be pleased to issue in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 3. Brief facts of the case, in a nutshell, are that the petitioner has been continuously working as a Cook (Rasoiya) for a considerable period under the Mid Day Meal Scheme at Government Primary School, Keradih, Block Baderajpur, District Kondagaon (C.G.), which is under the administrative control of respondent No.2. The petitioner has been discharging his duties regularly, sincerely, and without any interruption, and a certificate of satisfactory service along with relevant particulars has been issued by the Head Master of the concerned school. 4. Despite rendering continuous service for about seven to eight hours daily, the petitioner is being paid a meagre sum of Rs.40/- per day or Rs.1200/- per month, as fixed by the respondents. The said remuneration is grossly disproportionate and in stark contrast to the minimum wages notified by the State Government for Zone ‘C’, wherein even unskilled labour is entitled to wages of Rs.306.67/- per day with dearness allowance or at least Rs.260/- per day without dearness allowance during the relevant period. 5. The grievance raised by the petitioner is neither novel nor isolated. 4 In respect of similarly situated persons, this Court, vide order dated 19.01.2022 passed in WPS No.291/2022 (Johar Lal v. Union of India and Others), granted liberty to raise such grievances before the appropriate forum. The petitioner had earlier approached this Court by filing WPS No.5081/2020, which was disposed of vide order dated 07.11.2022. However, despite repeated representations and the legitimate expectation that his grievance would be considered in accordance with law, the respondents have failed to take any meaningful action or to communicate any decision, thereby compelling the petitioner to once again invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court. 6. Mr. N. K. Malviya, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the work performed by the petitioner is an integral part of a flagship national programme, namely the Mid Day Meal Scheme, and requires sustained physical labour for several hours each day. It is contended that the respondents have arbitrarily rejected the petitioner’s claim on the erroneous premise that preparation of mid-day meals requires only one and a half hours, which is wholly impractical and contrary to ground realities. He further submits that denial of minimum wages to the petitioner amounts to clear discrimination and exploitation, in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and the doctrine of “equal pay for equal work”, as authoritatively laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab and Others v. Jagjit Singh and Others, (2017) 1 SCC 148. It is pointed out that unskilled labour in other fields is 5 being paid Rs.306.67/- per day, whereas the petitioner, despite rendering similar or greater labour, has been denied even the said minimum wages, which constitutes manifest arbitrariness on the part of the respondents. 7. It is submitted by Mr. Malviya that due to such discriminatory treatment, the petitioner has been compelled to live a life below dignity. The petitioner’s claim has been wrongly rejected on the basis of an alleged statement of an ex-President of a so-called association that cooking mid-day meals requires only one and a half hours, which assertion is wholly unrealistic. In fact, the petitioner attends work at about 8:00 a.m. and returns home around 3:00 p.m., thereby discharging duties for nearly seven hours every day. He further submits that the action of the respondents has resulted in denial of his right to live with dignity, and in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the petition filed by the petitioner be allowed. 8. Ms. Deeksha Pandey, learned Central Government Counsel appearing for the Union of India/respondent No.1, submits that the Union of India is only a formal party in the present writ petition. 9. On the other hand, Mr. Dashrath Prajapati, learned State Counsel appearing on behalf of respondents No.2 to 6 opposes the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner and respectfully submits that the writ petition, as framed and filed, is devoid of merit and substance and is liable to be dismissed at the 6 threshold, as the petitioner has failed to demonstrate the existence of any legally enforceable right warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is submitted that the petitioner had earlier preferred WPS No.5081/2022, which was disposed of in terms of the order dated 19.01.2022 passed in WPS No.291/2022, whereby liberty was granted to submit a representation. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner submitted a representation, which was duly considered and decided by the competent authority within the stipulated period in accordance with law and in light of the circulars and orders issued by the State Government from time to time. 10. It is further submitted by Mr. Prajapati that this Court, vide order dated 07.11.2022, directed respondents No.1 and 2 to decide the petitioner’s representation within three months, keeping in view the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jagjit Singh (supra). In compliance thereof, the petitioner’s grievance was examined and rejected vide impugned order dated 27.07.2023, holding that the petitioner, being engaged as a Part-Time Cook for one hour and thirty minutes, was not entitled to wages of Rs.8100/- per month and was rightly paid honorarium of Rs.1500/- per month, which was subsequently enhanced to Rs.2000/- per month pursuant to State Government order dated 20.09.2023. 11. Mr. Prajapati submits that the petitioner’s engagement and continuation were strictly governed by the relevant circulars and 7 schemes, subject to availability of sanctioned funds under Samagra Shiksha. Upon non-sanction of funds from the Central Government, the petitioner’s services were discontinued after due notice, and thereafter he continued to work only with consent as a Part-Time Cook on an honorarium basis. It is also submitted that the petitioner was never appointed against any sanctioned post nor was his engagement governed by the Minimum Wages Act. Consequently, the claim based on Collector rates or minimum wages is wholly misconceived and inapplicable. Since the petitioner’s representation has already been duly considered in accordance with law, the impugned orders are just, proper, and legal, and the present writ petition, being devoid of merit, deserves to be dismissed. 12. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel appearing for the respondents and have perused the pleadings and documents placed on record. 13. From a perusal of the pleadings, it emerges that the principal grievance of the petitioner is denial of appropriate remuneration and payment of a meagre amount which does not even meet the standards prescribed under the Minimum Wages Act. The petitioner is engaged as a Cook under the Mid Day Meal Scheme, which is a welfare programme of the Central Government implemented by the State of Chhattisgarh. Though termed as a “mid-day meal”, considering the nature, quantity, and responsibility 8 involved, the preparation of such meals requires engagement of the cook from the morning hours and takes about four to five hours for preparation till culmination, demanding sustained attention and physical labour. 14. The remuneration being paid to the petitioner appears to be grossly inadequate. Even for temporary or daily wage work, the Labour Department has prescribed minimum wages of approximately Rs.300/- per day. Cooking is a skilled activity, yet the petitioner, as well as similarly situated cooks engaged under the Mid Day Meal Scheme, are being paid an amount far below even the wages prescribed for unskilled labour. As per the notified structure, unskilled labour is entitled to wages of Rs.306.67/- per day, whereas the petitioner, who is engaged from about 8:00 a.m. till 3:00 p.m., is being paid a meagre honorarium. 15. Non-payment of minimum wages applicable to skilled or even unskilled labour, despite engagement for substantial hours, is prima facie violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The grounds on which the petitioner’s representation has been rejected do not appear to be in accordance with law. The State, being a welfare State, cannot adopt a stand to deny fair and reasonable remuneration to its workers. The State and its instrumentalities are under a constitutional obligation to pay appropriate wages to persons engaged by them, even if such engagement is on a temporary or daily wage basis. 9 16. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jagjit Singh (supra) has categorically held that the principle of “equal pay for equal work” is applicable even to temporary employees, including daily wage and contractual workers and held as follows :- "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 herein above. The principle of 'equal pay for equal work has also been extended to temporary employees (differently described as work charge, daily wage, casual ad hoc, contractual, and the like). The legal position, relating to temporary employees, has been summarized by us, in paragraph 44 herein above. The above legal position which has been repeatedly declared is being reiterated. by us, yet again.” 17. Reverting to the facts of the present case in the light of the aforesaid judicial precedents, it is evident that the petitioner has been continuously engaged as a Cook under the Mid Day Meal Scheme and has been discharging his duties for several hours every day. The nature of work performed by the petitioner involves 10 skill, responsibility, and sustained physical labour. The petitioner cannot, by any stretch of imagination, be treated as bonded labour under a democratic and constitutional framework. Merely because the engagement is termed as part-time or honorarium-based, the respondents cannot be absolved of their obligation to ensure payment of fair, reasonable, and dignified remuneration. 18. The payment being made to the petitioner is not only grossly inadequate but also falls far below the minimum wages prescribed even for unskilled labour. Such a situation is wholly inconsistent with the constitutional mandate under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jagjit Singh (supra), wherein it has been categorically held that temporary, daily wage, or contractual employees are also entitled to the benefit of “equal pay for equal work”. 19. The rejection of the petitioner’s claim on the premise that the work requires only one and a half hours is neither supported by material on record nor in consonance with practical realities. The petitioner has demonstrated that he remains engaged from morning till afternoon in connection with preparation and distribution of meals. The action of the respondents, therefore, in denying appropriate remuneration, cannot be sustained in law. 20. In view of the above discussion, the grievance raised by the petitioner is found to be reasonable and deserving of 11 consideration. Accordingly, while allowing the writ petition, the respondents are directed to reconsider the case of the petitioner and grant him appropriate and reasonable honorarium/salary, commensurate with the skilled nature of the work performed by him, in the light of the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jagjit Singh (supra), without any arbitrary deduction and within a reasonable period. The respondents shall ensure that the petitioner is paid such remuneration as would enable him to live a life with dignity and discharge his familial responsibilities. 21. Resultantly, the writ petition stands allowed in the manner indicated above. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Yogesh The date when the judgment is reserved The date when the judgment is pronounced The date when the judgment is uploaded on the website Operative Full 19.12.2025 15.01.2026 ------ 15.01.2026