Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 1780 (JHR)

Raj Kumar Ram Dom v. State Of Jharkhand

2018-08-08

PRAMATH PATNAIK

body2018
JUDGMENT Pramath Patnaik, J. - In the aforesaid writ applications, since the relief sought for are more or less identical, with the consent of the respective counsels the matters have been heard analogously and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. In the aforesaid writ applications, the petitioners in different writ applications who have been working between the year 1989 to 2007 on the post of Sweeper, Driver, Ambulance Driver, Dresser and Barber, have sought for direction upon the respondents for revision of pay in their salary in pursuance to 6th pay revision and for regularization of their services, since they have been discharging their duties against the sanctioned vacant post of different categories as mentioned above. 3. It has been stated by learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioner in W.P.(S) No.2406 of 2012 has been working as a Sweeper in Medininagar since 01.04.2002; petitioner in W.P.(S) No.2407 of 2012 has been working as a Driver in the District Jail, Sakchi now in Ghaghidih since 10.03.2007; petitioner in W.P.(S) No.2411 of 2012 has been working as a Sweeper in Medininagar since 01.12.2003; petitioner in W.P.(S) No.2413 of 2012 has been working as an Ambulance Driver in Medininagar since 16.08.2002; petitioner in W.P.(S) No.2414 of 2012 has been working as an Ambulance Driver in Ghatshila since 24.04.2006; petitioner in W.P.(S) No.2416 of 2012 has been working as an Ambulance Driver in Saraikella since 26.11.2007; petitioner in W.P.(S) No.2428 of 2012 has been working as a Dresser in Central Jail, Ghaghidih since 26.02.1989; petitioner in W.P.(S) No.2445 of 2012 has been working as a Sweeper in Medininagar since 01.12.2004; petitioner in W.P.(S) No.2446 of 2012 has been working as Sweeper in Ghatshila since 01.10.1997; petitioner in W.P.(S) No.2451 of 2012 has been working as a Barber in Ghatshila since 17.09.2008. Learned counsel for the petitioners further stated that since all the petitioners have rendered considerable length of services and earlier similarly situated persons have approached this Court in W.P.(S) No.2189 of 2011 (Rajeshwar Dubey & Ors. vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors.), W.P.(S) No.2156 of 2012 (Nand Kishore Valmiki vs. The State of Jharkhand & Ors.), W.P.(S) No.2190 of 2012 (Usha Devi vs. The State of Jharkhand & Ors.), the case of the petitioners in all the writ petition be disposed of with similar direction. 4. vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors.), W.P.(S) No.2156 of 2012 (Nand Kishore Valmiki vs. The State of Jharkhand & Ors.), W.P.(S) No.2190 of 2012 (Usha Devi vs. The State of Jharkhand & Ors.), the case of the petitioners in all the writ petition be disposed of with similar direction. 4. Apart from the order in the aforesaid writ applications, the learned counsel for the petitioners has referred to the judgment ( State of Punjab & Ors. Vs. Jagjit Singh & Ors. , (2017) 1 SCC 148 ), wherein the Hon''ble Apex Court in a landmark judgment have been pleased to illuminitavely conceptualized the principles of equal pay for equal work and the petitioners be extended with the benefits of grant of equal pay as admissible to regular employees. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent-State, however by referring to the counter affidavit has submitted that all the petitioners have been working on daily wage basis and are getting daily wages under the direction of the labour department. Moreover, the prayer of the petitioners are misconceived because of the fact that unless petitioners are given the minimum scale of pay the benefit of extending revision of pay under 6th Pay Revision shall not be considered. Since the petitioners have been working on daily wage basis, the prayer for grant of regular scale of pay of the petitioners ought not to be considered and the decision cited by the petitioners are not applicable to the case of the petitioners. 6. During the midst of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that if a liberty would be given to all the petitioners in the aforesaid writ applications to file representation before the competent authority with regard to grant of minimum scale of pay in the light of the aforesaid decision rendered in similarly situated persons as well as Hon''ble Apex Court, the grievance of the petitioner in the aforesaid writ applications shall be redressed. 7. 7. Be that as it may, looking to the prayer of the petitioners and without delving into the merit of the matter, all the writ petitions are disposed of as the issue relating to grant of minimum pay scale may be looked into by the competent authority under which the petitioners are working and all the petitioners would be at liberty to make representation along with relevant documents before the competent authority with regard to the aforesaid claim within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the order. On receipt of the said representations, the respondent authorities shall consider the individual representation in different writ petitions in accordance with law within a reasonable period, preferably within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of such representation along with the copy of the order. 8. Accordingly, all the writ petitions are disposed of.