Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 1601 (PAT)

Ram Ratan Singh v. Patna Municipal Corporation

2007-09-27

body2007
ORDER Heard counsel for the parties. 2. Petitioner's grievance is that while working as a Sanitary Supervisor in a substantive basis he was asked to shoulder the responsibility of Sanitary Inspector by virtue of an order contained in Annexure-6 dated 1.2.1986. Petitioner took charge of the responsibility on 1.3.1986 and continued to perform his duties in the same capacity till 2.1.2002. After 2.1.2002 petitioner has been granted promotion to the said post on a substantive basis and he has drawn his salary accordingly. Petitioner's claim is that he is entitled to equal pay for equal work and also the fact that since he has worked on the dictates of the respondents and shouldered higher responsibility for a prolonged period of time he is entitled to salary and pay scale which is available to a Sanitary Inspector. 3. There is no other dispute as such in this regard, the only question which needs to be decided in this case is whether the prolonged shouldering of responsibility of the petitioner on the higher post would beget him benefit of the same said post. It is apparent from the evidence on record that though Annexure-6 was passed in the given circumstances indicated in the order, the arrangement continued right till the date the petitioner was promoted on a substantive basis in 2002. In other words, petitioner worked for more than 15-16 years on the post of Sanitary Inspector, no doubt on an officiating basis. Petitioner submits that in similar circumstances there have been occasion for this Court to pass orders for payment of at least the basic salary or pay on the post on which the petitioner was made to work though on an officiating basis. In this regard he draws my attention to a reported decision in the case of Virendra Kumar Srivastava Vs. State of Bihar 2005(4) PLJR 393 . Petitioner specially relies on paragraphs 8 and 9 of the said decision. Taking into consideration various judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and based on the principles decided therein the Court directed for payment of salary to the petitioner in question and also fix the consequential pension since the petitioner of that case had superannuated. 4. Petitioner specially relies on paragraphs 8 and 9 of the said decision. Taking into consideration various judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and based on the principles decided therein the Court directed for payment of salary to the petitioner in question and also fix the consequential pension since the petitioner of that case had superannuated. 4. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent-Corporation and they have said that the petitioner is entitled to pay only from the date he was given promotion on the post of Sanitary Inspector on a substantive basis, which is after 2002 based on the promotion order issued in his favour. As far as the claim of the petitioner for earlier period is concerned it has been simply denied on the ground that he is not entitled to the pay in question. 5. The arrangement of the kinds under which the petitioner has been made to work for many a years were not an unusual exercise. Large number of employees under the Corporation have been given higher responsibility as a stop-gap arrangement and thereafter they have been made to continue on the same post and work as such without corresponding benefits of pay and allowance which goes with the same said post. If these arrangements were made for a short while nobody can have a grievance with regard to the same but if a person is made and forced to shoulder the higher responsibility for more than a decade or two without the corresponding benefit then surely the petitioner will have a right to claim some benefit in terms of pay of the post on which he was working. Many a Benches of this Court taking the above fact as well as principles decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Secretary-cum-Chief Engineer, Chandigarh Vs. Hari Om Sharma & Ors. (1998)5 SCC 87 and Smt. P. Grover Vs. State of Haryana & Anr., A.I.R. 1983 S.C. 1060 have directed payment of the basic pay of the post in question. The case of the petitioner being similar in nature, this court accordingly directs the respondents to give the benefit of basic pay of the post of Sanitary Inspector for the period the petitioner has worked i.e. from 1.3.1986 to 2.1.2002. The case of the petitioner being similar in nature, this court accordingly directs the respondents to give the benefit of basic pay of the post of Sanitary Inspector for the period the petitioner has worked i.e. from 1.3.1986 to 2.1.2002. Let the exercise for working out the payment of the petitioner be carried out within six months and steps be taken up thereafter for payment. 6. This writ application is allowed to the extent indicated above.