Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1005 (HP)

Sheetal Sharma v. State of H. P.

2012-12-19

RAJIV SHARMA

body2012
JUDGMENT Rajiv Sharma, Judge: The petitioner was appointed as Special Educator on contractual basis on 28.11.2005. Case of the petitioner, in a nutshell, is that she is not allowed the benefit of merger of 50% of dearness pay on the initial of the pay scale w.e.f. 01.09.2006. 2. The State of Himachal Pradesh has taken a conscious decision to give the benefit of merger of 50% of dearness pay on the initial of the pay scale on 09.05.2006. The Executive Committee of SSA (Sarv Shiksha Abhiyan) (hereinafter referred to as “the SSA” for the sake of convenience), in its meeting held on 22.09.2006, has decided to give the benefit of merger of 50% of dearness pay on the initial of the pay scale to all the contractual employees w.e.f. 01.09.2006. The only reason to deny the benefit of merger of 50% of dearness pay on the initial of pay scale of the petitioner is that the salary/honorarium of the petitioner is being claimed on the specific intervention, i.e., inclusive education for CWSN (Children With Special Need) and continuity of her appointment solely depends on the approval of this scheme by the Project Approval Board (PAB) of Ministry of Human Resource Development (MHRD) on year to year basis. 3. The respondents could not make distinction in giving the benefit of merger of 50% of dearness pay on the initial of the pay scale only on the basis of mode of recruitment. The petitioner and other staff of SSA have been appointed on contract basis. The focus of the respondents should be to provide better conditions of service to the employees who are directly involved in SSA instead of giving benefits to those employees who are though employed in SSA, but working as Ministerial Staff. The fact that the salary of the contract staff and the sanctioned establishment of the S.S.A. would be met from the Management of S.S.A. and the salary of the petitioner is claimed against specific intervention/scheme will not come in the way of the petitioner to get benefit of merger of 50% of dearness allowance in the pay. The petitioner has also been appointed by the SSA, even though his salary is claimed against the specific intervention, i.e., inclusive education for CWSN (Children With Special Need). The petitioner has also been appointed by the SSA, even though his salary is claimed against the specific intervention, i.e., inclusive education for CWSN (Children With Special Need). The classification made by the respondents to deny the benefit of merger of 50% of dearness pay on the initial of the pay scale to the petitioner only on the grounds that her salary is drawn against Specific Intervention Scheme, is bad in law. The classification made by the respondents to deny the merger of 50% dearness allowance in the pay on the mode of recruitment is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Moreover, there is no nexus with the objects to be achieved. The conditions of all the employees working under the same employer should be uniform. Once the SSA has adopted the notification issued by the State Government to give the benefit of merger of 50% of dearness pay on the initial of the pay scale, the same should have been applied uniformly by the Board to all the employees working under it. The decision of the SSA not to grant the benefit of merger of 50% of dearness pay on the initial of the pay scale to the petitioner amounts to invidious discrimination and is illegal, arbitrary, thus, violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 4. Accordingly, in view of the observations and discussions made hereinabove, the writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to give the benefit of merger of 50% of dearness pay on the initial of the pay scale to the petitioner w.e.f. 01.09.2006 with interest @ 7% per annum, within a period of ten weeks from today, failing which, the petitioner will be entitled to interest @ of 12% per annum till the payment is realized. The pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. No costs.