Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 709 (JHR)

Dasho Oraon v. Central Coal Fields Ltd.

2004-07-16

N.N.TIWARI

body2004
JUDGMENT N.N. Tiwari, J. 1. In this writ petition the prayer of the petitioner is for issuance of an appropriate direction to the respondents to regularize his service on the post of Munshi and to pay the difference in wages since 25.4.1997. 2. The claim of the petitioner is that he was appointed as General Mazdoor Category No. 1 in the respondents company on 12.8.1989. Subsequently by office order dated 25.4.1997 the petitioner was authorized to work as a Munshi with immediate effect (Annexure-2), The further case of the petitioner is that he has been discharging duty of a Munshi. but he is being given payment admissible to the post of category No. 1 Mazdoor. In all the correspondences he is being addressed as Munshi and in fact he has been discharging the duties of Munshi and as such he is entitled to get higher pay scale of a Munshi. According to the petitioner, he possesses all the requisite qualifications which are required for the said post. The petitioner also claims that he has been discharging the duty of a Munshi for a long period and he is entitled to be regularized on the post of Munshi and to get pay scale of Munshi and consequent difference of pay, which he claims with effect from 25.4.1997. 3. The respondent contested the claim of the petitioner by filing a counter affidavit and stating, inter alia, that the petitioner is still on the post of General Mazdoor Category 1. According to the respondents, an employee can not be automatically regularized or placed on a higher post only on the claim of his working on the post and discharging equivalent duties unless and until the vacancy exists and the candidate fulfills the requisite eligibility criteria and selected in test. It is stated that Munshis in the respondents company are placed in clerical Grade II subject to their performing specific Job and the petitioner is not discharging the duty of clerical Grade II and he has been placed in clerical Grade III and has not been posted against the post of Munshi either through promotion or under the prescribed scheme. It is stated that Munshis in the respondents company are placed in clerical Grade II subject to their performing specific Job and the petitioner is not discharging the duty of clerical Grade II and he has been placed in clerical Grade III and has not been posted against the post of Munshi either through promotion or under the prescribed scheme. Respondents denied that the petitioner has been performing job of a Munshi equivalent to clerical Grade II and on the said premise respondents claimed that the petitioner is not entitled to relief as prayed for in this writ petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. 4. After hearing the parties and going through the records. I find that the respondents have addressed the petitioner as Munshi and in one office order issued by the reject Officer Kedia Under Ground Project being Ref. No. OM/KUGP/97/591-95. dated 25.4.1997, whereby the petitioner has been allowed to work as Munshi at Mine No. III with effect from 25.4.1997. The said office order dated 25.4.1997 has been annexed as Annexure-2 Lo the writ petition, Further in another order No. PO/KUGP/ 97/260-62, dated 9.7.1997 (Annexure-3) addressed to the peULioner in which warning was issued stating that most of tubs are under loaded due to his poor supervision which is serious matter which results into stock shortage and financial loss to the company and he has been warned to properly supervises the loading and that on failure, disciplinary action under the company rule may be initiated against him. The said orders dated 25.4.1997 and dated 9.7.1997 have not been disputed by the respondents. Thus it: is evident from the said orders issued by the respondents that the petitioner has been addressed as Munshi and discharging some type of supervisory duty, 5. Mrs. Rina S. Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that the said office orders go to sufficiently show that the petitioner has been discharging the duty of a Munshi which is a clerical Grade II post and which carry higher pay scale than that of a category I Mazdoor. According to the learned counsel, though the respondents are taking work of a Munshi from the petitioner yet they are not giving the pay scale which a Munshi is entitled to get. According to the learned counsel, though the respondents are taking work of a Munshi from the petitioner yet they are not giving the pay scale which a Munshi is entitled to get. According to the learned counsel, since the respondents are instrumentality of a welfare State, every action on their part should be fair bona fide and reasonable but the respondents are discriminating against the petitioner and they have been unfairly treating him by paying less than what he is actually entitled to get. According to the learned counsel, since the petitioner has been working on that post for a petty long time, he is entitled to be regularized against that post with appropriate pay scale and he is also entitled to get difference of pay w.e.f. 25.4.1997. 6. Mrs. Sheela Prasad learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents on the other hand submitted that though in the office order as contained in Annexures 2 and 3 the petitioner has been addressed as Munshi yet by mere nomenclature, a person is not entitled to be regularized on the said post and/or is not entitled to pay scale of that post. According to the learned counsel , for regularization there are legal formalities to be observed. According to her, regularization is subject to the availability of the vacancy and eligibility and selection of the candidate. According to her, the management has already formulated a scheme for regularizatton and mode of selection which is called the Cadre Scheme for Ministerial Staff. The said scheme has been annexed as Annexure-D to the counter affidavit filed by the respondents. 7. Mrs. Prasad further submitted that it is not admitted that the petitioner has been discharging the duties of clerical Grade II. And such disputed question of fact cannot be decided in writ jurisdiction of this Court. 8. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and duly considered the records of the case I find that there are office orders issued by the respondents addressing the petitioner as Munshi. However, it is not clear from the office order as to whether the petitioner has been discharging the duty of clerical Grade II or clerical Grade III. The learned counsel for the petitioner also cannot convince this Court, from the materials on record, on the said point. However, it is not clear from the office order as to whether the petitioner has been discharging the duty of clerical Grade II or clerical Grade III. The learned counsel for the petitioner also cannot convince this Court, from the materials on record, on the said point. However, from the records at least it is clear that the petitioner has been discharging some sort of supervisory duty and that admittedly he is not being paid on the pay scale of a supervisor or clerical Grade II. In view of the said admitted position, the grievance of the petitioner requires consideration somewhere. However, in view of the nature of the dispute it cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction, but the respondents can effectively redress the grievance of the petitioner, giving clue consideration on his claim. 9. Accordingly the petitioner is directed to file a fresh representation with all necessary details and supporting documents before the General Manager through Project Officer Kedia Under Ground Project C.C.L. Hazaribagh within one month from the date of the receipt of a copy of this order. On receipt of such representation the General Manager Kedia Under Ground Project shall Fix a dale of hearing with a due notice to the petitioner in writing and afford him sufficient opportunity of hearing. The General Manager, thereafter will consider the representation as well the office orders already issued by the respondents earlier and other material on record and thereafter he shall pass a speaking order in accordance with law within one month thereafter. If the General Manager finds that the petitioners claim is genuine he shall ensure effective redressal of the petitioners grievance. If the petitioner is found entitled lo any monetary benefits on account of admissible pay scale or otherwise, the General Manager will ensure that the same is calculated and communicated to the petitioner and arrears if any is paid within a period of three months from his order on the petitioners said representation. 10. The writ petition stands disposed of with the above directions.