Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 711 (JHR)

Ramashis Deo v. Central Coalfields 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 25.2.1992. 2. The claim of the petitioner is that he was appointed as General Mazdoor, Cat. I in the respondents company on 21.12.1991 and subsequently by office order dated 21.7.1993 the petitioner was advised, to work as a Munshi, and to arrange proper loading of tubs. In another office order dated 20.1.1994 his shift as Munshi was rearranged by the Project Officer, Kedla under ground project. Letters dated 5.9.1994 and 11.5,1994 were issued by Dy. Personal Manager, Kedla under ground project for holding meeting regarding hisregularization on the post of Munshi along with others. The petitioner is thus discharging duty of a Munshi, but he is being given payment of the post of categoiy No. 1 Mazdoor. The further case of the petitioner is that all along the respondents addressed the petitioner 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 possess requisite qualification, which is required for the said post. The petitioner also claims that 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. 3. The respondents contested the claim of the petitioner by filing a counter affidavit stating, inter alia, that the petitioner is still on the post of Category I General Mazdoor. According to the respondents, an employee cannot 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. It is stated that Munshis in the respondents company are placed in clerical Grade II subject to their performing specific job and but the petitioner is not discharging the duty of clerical Grade II and he has not been posted against the post of Munshi either through promotion or under the prescribed scheme. candidate fulfills the requisite eligibility criteria. It is stated that Munshis in the respondents company are placed in clerical Grade II subject to their performing specific job and but the petitioner is not discharging the duty of clerical Grade II and he 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 premises 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 in office orders dated 21.7.1993. dated 20.1.1994 issued by Project Officer, Kedla under ground Project and Letters dated 5.9.1994 and 11.5.1994 were issued by the Dy. Personal Manager, Kedla under ground project directing the petitioner and others to appear before the Regularization Committee with requisite documents for the purpose of regularization on the post of Munshi. By office order dated 21.12.1994 the petitioner was transferred from Mine No. 1 to Mine No. 2 as Munshi by Colliery Manager Kedla Under Ground Project. The said office orders and letters have not been disputed by the respondents. Thus it is evident from the said orders/letters issued by the respondents that the petitioner has been working 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, since the respondents are instrumentality of welfare State, every action on their part should be fair bonafide 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 respondents are instrumentality of welfare State, every action on their part should be fair bonafide 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 orders 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. Acceding to her, regularization is subject to the availability of the vacancy and eligibility and selection pf the candidate. According to her, the management has al- ready formulated a scheme for regularization 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 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, 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. 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 due 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 Kedla 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 Kedla Under Ground Project shall fix a date 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 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 to 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.