1.Lochan Mahto 2.Shambhunath 3.Biran Prasad 4.Dinesh Prasad 5.Pano Devi v. …
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W. P. (S) No. 7461 of 2012 --- 1.Lochan Mahto 2.Shambhunath 3.Biran Prasad 4.Dinesh Prasad 5.Pano Devi Versus … … Petitioners 1.State of Jharkhand 2.Principal Secretary, Water Resources Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi 3.Deputy Secretary, Water Resources Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi 4.Under Secretary, Water Resources Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi 5.Chief Engineer, Minor Irrigation, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi … … Respondents --- CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR --- For the Petitioners : M/s. Sujit Narayan Pd. & Nitin Prasad, Advocate For the Respondents
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Ashish Kumar Shekhar, J.C. to G.P. VI 6/19.09.2013 --- The petitioners have approached this Court with the following prayers: (i) For issuance of an appropriate direction in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order as contained in memo no. 513 and 1686 dated 24.02.2012 and 17.07.2012 issued by respondent no. 2 rejecting the claim of the petitioners for payment of their salary on the basis of minimum pay scale. (ii) For issuance of an appropriate direction in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order as contained in memo no. 174 dated 21.01.2009 issued by respondent no. 2 whereby the daily wagers like the petitioners have been directed to be paid their salary, which they were getting prior to issuance of letter no. 2409 dated 10.09.2007 i.e. at the rate of daily wagers only and thus, they have been deprived of getting the minimum of pay scale. -2- (iii) For issuance of an appropriate direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to forthwith release the entire arrears of difference of salary with interest with respect to the petitioners. 2. The brief facts of the case are that, the petitioners were appointed between the year, 1979 and 1985. Petitioners have been regularised in service on 18.03.2011, however, they have approached this Court for grant of minimum of pay-scale at the lowest grade for certain period prior to the order of regularisation. In support of their case, the petitioners have relied on several orders passed by the High Court, one of which attained finality as Special Leave Petition preferred by the State has been dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 3. A counter affidavit has been filed denying the claim of the petitioners. 4. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents on record. 5. In the writ petition in paragraph 11, the petitioners have given the details of the dues, which they are claiming from the respondents. Paragraph 11 is extracted below: Sl. No. 1. Name Lochan Mahto 2. 3. Shambhu Nath Biran Prasad 4. Dinesh Prasad Date of appointment Period for which the payments are due Place 16.06.1982 01.04.2007 to 31.07.2007 and from 01.11.2007 to 22.03.2011 01.07.1985 01.04.2007 to 31.07.2007 and from 01.11.2007 to 22.03.2011 20.07.1980 01.04.2007 to 31.07.2007 and from 01.11.2007 to 23.03.2011 01.09.1979 01.04.2007 to 31.07.2007 and from 01.11.2007 to 23.03.2011 Minor Irrigation Division, Latehar Minor Irrigation Division, Latehar Minor Irrigation Division, Latehar Minor Irrigation Division, Latehar -3- 5. Pano Devi 01.10.1982 01.04.2007 to 31.07.2007 and from 01.11.2007 to 23.03.2011 Minor Irrigation Division, Latehar 6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners relying on an order passed by this Court in “Nand Kishore Rai Vs. State of Jharkhand & Others” in W.P.(S) No. 700 of 2009, has contended that the order passed in the said case has attained finality as the Letters Patent Appeal as well as the Special Leave Petition have been dismissed. The petitioner of the said case namely, one Nand Kishore Rai falls under the category of the 'similarly situated persons' like the petitioners of the present case, and therefore, the benefit which has been given to the said petitioner should also be extended to the petitioners in the present writ petition. 7. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents has submitted that the issue has already been decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in S. L. P. (Civil) No. 18154 of 1999, in which the Association which has espoused the cause of the petitioner and others, was a party, wherein such claim raised by the Association has been refused by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 8. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners further submitted that the impugned orders dated 24.02.2012 & 17.07.2012 suffer from non-application of mind as nothing has been decided by those orders and in fact the claim of the petitioners has not even been discussed in the right perspective. The order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court has been considered by the authority which was rendered much prior to the decision in the case of “State of Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi” reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1, and therefore, such decision is not applicable in the present writ petition. 9. On a perusal of the materials on record, it would appear that in the case of "Nand Kishore Rai" (supra), the learned Single Judge of this Court has passed the order recording a specific -4- finding which is extracted below: 5(e) “The petitioner is working since last 31 years i.e. more than three decades with the respondents-Government. The petitioner has already been paid as stated hereinabove, looking to the Annexure-7, upto 21st January, 2009, the minimum of the lowest grade of the employees of this cadre.” 10. It would also appear from the paragraph 55 of the judgment in the case of Uma Devi (supra) that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has also modified the order of the Division Bench and directed the respondents for payment of the minimum of pay-scale at the lowest grade to those persons, from the date of the order of the Division Bench, and therefore it cannot be said that as a principle of law, it has been laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that in every case an employee working on daily wages would be entitled for grant of payment of minimum of pay-scale at the lowest grade. 11. Since the Letters Patent Appeal preferred against the W.P.(S) No. 700 of 2009 has been dismissed and the Special Leave Petition preferred against the said L.P.A. No. 130 of 2012 has also been dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in view of the specific factual finding recorded by the learned Single Judge as noticed above, I am of the opinion that the case of the petitioners in the present case is not similar to the case of "Nand Kishore Rai" (supra). It would further appear from the claim raised by the petitioners in paragraph 11 itself that the petitioners are claiming payment from the year, 2007 itself, and therefore, it cannot be said that they had been regularly paid till January, 2009. In the case of "Nand Kishore Rai" (supra), the learned Single Judge has allowed the prayer of the petitioner on the ground that the said petitioner was paid regularly till January, 2009. -5- 12. In view of the aforesaid, this writ petition lacks merit and is hereby dismissed. R. Shekhar Cp 2/AFR (Shree Chandrashekhar, J.)