'Begar' Prohibited Under Article 23: Allahabad HC Directs Payment Of Salaries To Multi-Purpose Health Workers For Period Of Work

While granting relief to Multi-Purpose Health Workers (Male), the Allahabad High Court has held the 'Begar' is prohibited under Article 23 of the Constitution of India.“Article 23 of the Constitution of India has wider implications and scope regrading begar i.e. by taking work but not paying for the same which is linked with right to livelihood covered under Article 21 of the Constitution of India,” held Justice Manish Kumar. The Court relied on Ram Chet Verma and others Vs. the State of U.P. and others where the Supreme Court held that if persons have worked pursuant to interim orders of the Court, they will be entitled to salary for the period of work. The Supreme Court had held that “Non payment of salary to them for the period they have served under the interim order or otherwise would tantamount to taking begar from them, which is prohibited under Article 23 of the Constitution of India.”Factual BackgroundPetitioners were appointed on different dates between October 2012 to March 2013 on the post of Multi-Purpose Health Workers (Male) at different Primary Health Centre in the State of U.P. The appointment was for a period of three years under the scheme namely National Rural Health Mission which was a scheme by the Union Health Ministry.Guidelines for Multipurpose Health Worker (Male), 2010 were also issued by the Government of India pursuant to which appointments were to be made. The Director, National Rural Health Mission issued a letter to its state counterpart stating that the Government of India shall only extend financial support for contractual appointments of such Male workers until 31.03.2014 and not beyond that. The letter was challenged before the High Court where an interim order was granted directing that such contractual Multi-Purpose Health Workers (Male) be allowed to continue to work beyond 31.03.2014 as the initial appointment was made for a period of 3 years from 2012. However, after passing of the interim order, the Government of India wrote a letter to the State saying that the financial support regarding salaries of the workers will be provided till 30.09.2014 and not beyond that. Counsels of petitioners argued that since the initial appointment was made for a period of 3 years in terms of the guidelines, those appointed in October 2012 were entitled to work till October 2015, and those appointed in 2013 were entitled to their posts till 2016. It was submitted that the salary/honorarium were to be paid for the initial three years by the Union Government as well as the State Government as per the ratio prescribed in the Guidelines of 2010. It was argued that after completion of the three-year period, petitioners were entitled to continuity on regular basis and the State Government was liable to pay their salaries. Lastly, it was submitted that almost all the petitioners (more than 700) had worked up to 2018 but were not given their dues and were not being permitted to continue to work. Counsel for Union Government submitted that the Union Government was only liable to pay for a period of three years which was extended by six months. Thereafter, no liability rested on the Union Government. Per contra, counsel for State argued that the petitioners were only entitled for payment only till the scheme existed, till 30.09.2014. It was argued that the scheme had already been closed by the State Government and if the Chief Medical Officers in the State take any work from Multi-Purpose Health Workers (Male), they will be personally liable for them. High Court VerdictThe Court observed that approval for making appointments under the Scheme was given by the Government of India on 05.09.2012. The Court held that the scheme was applicable from the day on which appointment was made after implementation of the scheme in 2012. The Court held that the as per the Guidelines the State Government was liable to create posts for the Multi-Purpose Health Workers (Male) after their initial period of 3 years. However, the same was not done. The Court held that the order of the State Government directing the CMOs to not take any work from such workers was in violation of the interim order passed by the Court. Since the petitioners had continued to worked pursuant to the orders of the High Court, the Court directed the Government of India and the State Government of Uttar Pradesh to disburse the salaries to the petitioners who had worked for a period of three years from the date of their initial appointment. The Court held that the salary for the work done after the initial period of three years shall be paid by the State Government. Case Title: Shiv Pratap Maurya And 667 Ors. v. State Of U.P. Through Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Medical Health And Ors. [WRIT - A No. - 1453 of 2014]Appearances: Shri Sandeep Dixit, Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Vidhu Bhushan Kalia, counsel for petitioners, Sri S.B. Pandey, Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Mahendra Kumar Mishra, Counsel for the Union of India, Shri Kuldeep Pati...

'Begar' Prohibited Under Article 23: Allahabad HC Directs Payment Of Salaries To Multi-Purpose Health Workers For Period Of Work

Upasna Agrawal

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

'Begar' Prohibited Under Article 23: Allahabad HC Directs Payment Of Salaries To Multi-Purpose Health Workers For Period Of Work

Upasna Agrawal

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers