Anil Kumar … v. 1. National Institute of Technology, Jamshedpur. 2. The Chairman, B.O.G., National Institute of Technology
Case Details
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 7684 of 2017 Anil Kumar …. Petitioner Versus 1. National Institute of Technology, Jamshedpur. 2. The Chairman, B.O.G., National Institute of Technology, Jamshedpur. 3. Director, National Institute of Technology, Jamshedpur. 4. The Registrar, National Institute of Technology, Jamshedpur. …. Respondents CORAM : HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE S.N. PATHAK ------ For the Petitioner For the Respondents -----
Legal Reasoning
------ : Mr. Pradeep Kumar, Advocate Mr. Salil Sitanshu, Advocate : Mr. Anoop Kumar Mehta, Advocate 7 / 29.08.2023 Heard the parties. 2. In this writ petition, the petitioner is seeking a direction upon the respondents to fix pay scale of the petitioner at Rs. 4500-125-7000 instead of Rs. 4000-100-6000. 3. The facts leading to filing of the present writ petition are that the petitioner was appointed on 19.5.2000 as Section Cutter-cum-Store Keeper on compassionate ground in the pay scale of Rs. 4000-100-6000. It is the specific case of the petitioner that similarly situated persons of the said post were granted the pay scale of 4500-125-7000, but the case of the petitioner has been refuted. Several representations and reminders were given to the respondents, but no decision was taken. It is further case of the petitioner that even the Director of NIT pointed out such illegality and a letter to that effect was sent to the Under Secretary, NITs, Govt. of India for rectification, but no decision was taken as yet. 4. Mr. Pradeep Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner assiduously argues that the respondents have adopted pick and choose policy in granting the pay scale to the petitioner and similarly situated employees of the same cadre. The pay scale of the petitioner was fixed at Rs. 4000-6000, whereas other similarly situated employees working on the same post were granted the pay scale of 4500-7000, which cannot be sustainable in the eyes of law. Learned counsel further submits that discrimination cannot be done between the employees who have been 2 appointed on compassionate ground and those, who have been appointed on regular basis on the same post. Pay scale cannot be differentiated to the persons who have been appointed/working in a particular post. Learned counsel also submits that the appointment of the petitioner is not in dispute and he was never aggrieved by his initial appointment. The petitioner is aggrieved with the erroneous decision of the respondents for granting higher pay scale to the regularly appointed persons, on one hand and on the other hand, denying the same scale to the petitioner only on the ground that the petitioner was appointed on compassionate ground, which is per se illegal and arbitrary. To buttress his argument, learned counsel places heavy reliance upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in Special Leave to Appeal No. 19255 of 2021 (State of U.P. & Anr. Vs. Aishwarya Pandey), decided on 03.12.2021. Further, attention of this
Decision
Court has also been drawn towards Annexure-7 to the writ petition, which speaks that even the case of the petitioner was considered and recommended by the Director, NIT to the Under Secretary, NITs pointing out the specific illegality pertaining to lower pay scale. Learned counsel submits that the Director was very much aware that illegality was committed while granting lower pay scale to the petitioner, but strangely enough, no response has been received as yet. 5. Mr. Anoop Kumar Mehta, learned counsel appearing for the respondents vehemently opposing the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has accepted the pay scale at the time of appointment on compassionate ground and thereafter he cannot be permitted to take U-turn and claim himself to be a regular appointee. Thus, the pay scale granted to the petitioner is fully justified. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner was given the initial pay scale of Rs. 1200-1800 and thereafter he was granted the corresponding replacement scale of Rs. 4000-6000. Referring to several Rules of Compassionate appointment, learned counsel submits that the petitioner was appointed in a particular pay scale of Class-III and as such, he was granted the pay scale attached to his post. Learned counsel also submits that in absence of any direction from NIT, he is not entitled to the pay scale which he claimed. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having 3 gone through the records, this Court is of the considered view that the case of the petitioner needs consideration. Admittedly the petitioner was appointed on compassionate ground as per Rules. The petitioner is not aggrieved by his appointment, rather, he is aggrieved by his pay scale of Rs. 4000-6000 whereas similarly situated persons are getting the pay scale of 4500-7000. Law is well settled that the person cannot be discriminated on the ground either they were appointed on compassionate ground or on regular basis. The pay scale which is meant for a particular post is to be given to such persons irrespective of the fact that they are appointed on compassionate ground or regular basis. 7. The issue involved in this writ petition fell for consideration before the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of U.P. & Anr. Vs. Aishwarya Pandey (supra) wherein, Their Lordships held as under:- “ …………….. there cannot two different pay-scales for the employee appointed on compassionate ground and the employee appointed on regular basis. The moment a persons is appointed on a particular post, that person is entitled to the pay-scale of the very post, even if the appointment is on compassionate ground. At this stage, it is required to be noted that even in the case of similarly situated employees, the similar benefit was granted.” 8. In the instant case, even though the petitioner was appointed on compassionate ground, he is entitled for similar benefit as applicable to the employees appointed on regular basis. Even the Director of the NIT was aware that illegality has been committed and therefore, he was of the view that “the persons employed on compassionate ground will be eligible for similar pay as any other person employed on the same post through any other recruitment process. However, there were different scales for same post (assistant) among various departments of the participating State Govt. (State of Bihar). Seven people employed on compassionate grounds in NIT, Jamshedpur were given a lower pay scale (4000-100-6000) as compared to other employees working on the same post (4500-125-7000) which should not have been done.” 9. The Director of the NIT was very much aware that illegality has been committed and it should be rectified. Therefore, it can comfortably be inferred that the petitioner is entitled for the pay scale of 4500-125-7000. 4 10. As a sequitur to the aforesaid rules, regulations, guidelines and judicial pronouncements, the petitioner is entitled for the pay scale of 4500-125-7000. As such, the respondents are directed to consider the same and grant the pay scale of 4500-125-7000 to the petitioner, as early as possible preferably within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt / production of a copy of this order. 11. The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed. R.Kr. (Dr. S. N. Pathak, J.)