Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 606 (JHR)

Maha Prasad Ghosh v. State of Jharkhand

2018-03-14

S.N.PATHAK

body2018
ORDER : Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 2. Petitioners have approached this Court with a prayer for a direction upon the respondents to release their salary since the initial date of their appointment on the principle of equal pay for equal work. Petitioners have further prayed for a direction upon the respondents to consider their case and provide them all the benefits in light of Judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court. 3. The fact of the case as has been delineated in the instant writ petition is that petitioners are discharging their duties as a regular employee against different non-teaching posts in Mayurakshi Gramin Inter College, Ranishwar, Dumka for considerably long time. Appointment letters of the respective petitioners have been brought on record by way of supplementary affidavit vide Annexure-5 Series. The concerned College is being granted Grant-in-Aid (ANUDAN) since the Financial Year 2006-07 but petitioners have been denied the regular pay at par with the other Government employees working in other Colleges. It is case of the petitioners that they have been working against the regular post of the Government and discharging their duties regularly to the full satisfaction of the respondent-College. Admittedly College in question was established in the year 1985 and Grant-in-Aid is regularly being released in favour of the College since the Financial Year 2006-07, in spite of that, the petitioners are being denied their salary at par with the regular Government employees. Petitioners had also preferred representation before the respondents vide Anriexure-6 to the supplementary affidavit but the respondents are sitting tight over the matter. 4. Mr. Subodh Kumar Pandey, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that though petitioners have been working against the regular post but they are not being paid regular salary against the said post which is in teeth of Judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Court. Learned counsel further submits that action of the respondent is against the principles of "equal pay for equal work". Learned counsel submits that petitioners also fulfill all other requisite criteria and having valid degree for holding the post as per rules and regulation of the Government and are discharging their duties like a regular employee for a considerably long time. The College in question is getting Government's Grant-in-Aid and as such, petitioners are entitled for the salary at par with the regular Government employees. The College in question is getting Government's Grant-in-Aid and as such, petitioners are entitled for the salary at par with the regular Government employees. Learned counsel submits that petitioners are entitled for the regular pay scale. 5. Per contra counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent no.4-Jharkhand Academic Council, Ranchi. Respondent no. 4, in its Counter Affidavit, has specifically mentioned that the College in question in a non-aided institution and the same is affiliated from Jharkhand Academic Council. It is further alleged that the College in question is under Jharkhand State Unaided Educational Institution (Grant) Act, 2004 under which there is a provision of Grant-in-Aid. Jharkhand Academic Councilor the State Government, in any manner, is not responsible for payment of salary etc. to the employees employed in the College. 6. Counter Affidavit has not been filed by the other respondents. However, Mr. Atanu Bannerjee, learned Government Advocate submits that contention of the petitioner is totally hypothetical and cannot be accepted. College in question is not a Government College rather it receives certain Grants-in-Aid (ANUDAN) by the Government under various heads. The employees working in the College cannot claim for the salary or other benefits at par with the Government employees only because they are working for considerably long period and the College receives Grant-in-Aid. Claim of the petitioners to pay them salary at par with the other Government employees working on similar posts in Government Colleges and Departments, is not sustainable. It is the College and its Managing Committee to decide and fix the pay and other allowances admissible to the employees under the Rules and Regulations or Guidelines, if any. College has its own fund and it runs on their own under the Guidelines and Rules framed by the Government from time to time. 7. Be that as it may, having gone through rival submission of the parties, I am of the considered view that case of the petitioners have no merits and deserves dismissal. College in question is not a Government College and the employees working therein have been appointed by the Managing Committee of the College. Merely because the College in question gets Grant-in-Aid from the Government the employees cannot claim salary at par with the Government employees. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioners has no force and is rejected. 8. In view of facts and circumstances this writ petition stands dismissed. Merely because the College in question gets Grant-in-Aid from the Government the employees cannot claim salary at par with the Government employees. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioners has no force and is rejected. 8. In view of facts and circumstances this writ petition stands dismissed. As a result, I.A. No. 1646 of 2018 also stands disposed of.