Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 4 (UTT)

Kuldeep v. State of Uttarakhand

2019-01-02

SHARAD KUMAR SHARMA

body2019
JUDGMENT : SHARAD KUMAR SHARMA, J. 1. This is bunch of Seven Writ Petitions, involving an identical questions of facts and law, hence, for the purposes of convenience they are being disposed of together. 2. The petitioners claimed that on the basis of due process of selection resorted by respondents, they have been earlier appointed on several occasions against the sanctioned and vacant posts available with the respondents and they had been working since then against their respective date of appointment though on contractual basis with unblemished service records, their continuity as per petitioners, show the persistent need of their services. 3. The contention of the petitioners is that the selection of various persons to the posts was on the basis of Government Order dated 25.02.2009, it was made by respondents after due process of selection which was made, after on being considered by the Selection Committee constituted for the said purpose. Though the nature of appointment of the petitioners happens to be contractual appointment, but they have discharged their duties which were equivalent to duties as that of regular employee and they are even otherwise eligible for the post for regular appointment, as they hold requisite parameters fulfilled, and they are also having the same qualification as required for by the regular appointment and hence after their appointment as made, they have worked regularly now almost for over eight years, hence, they claim for that they ought to be paid the regular minimum of pay scale/salary as paid to the regular employees who are working as ‘Sister’ / Staff Nurses with the respondents. 4. The grievance of the petitioners is that despite of repeated prayer made to the respondents by filing several representations though their services ever since 2002, had been continued to be extended from time to time, yet no decision has been taken on the representation, which shows that there happens to be an exigency of service in the department, but despite of it, the petitioners have not been adequately remunerated by the respondents, looking to the quantum of services rendered by them. 5. Raising their claim for the payment of scale as admissible to the post of ‘Sister’/ Staff Nurses, they contend that they have raised their claim by filing representation dated 02.11.2017 before respondent no.3, but the same is pending consideration and no decision has been taken yet on the same by the respondents. 6. 5. Raising their claim for the payment of scale as admissible to the post of ‘Sister’/ Staff Nurses, they contend that they have raised their claim by filing representation dated 02.11.2017 before respondent no.3, but the same is pending consideration and no decision has been taken yet on the same by the respondents. 6. The contention of the petitioners is that looking to the service condition of the petitioners and the length of service, their representation ought to have been recommended to the State Government to be considered for paying the equal salary to the petitioners or at least they ought to be paid minimum of pay scale/salary under principles of Articles 14 and 39(1)(d) of Constitution. 7. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petition is being disposed of directing the respondent nos.2 and 3 to take an appropriate decision on the representation to be made by the petitioners within ten days from today with regards to the payment of minimum pay scale/salary to the petitioners and the decision as directed to be taken on the representation of petitioners would be taken by the respondents positively within a period of six weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order along with fresh representation. While taking decision on representation, the respondent would also consider the implications of judgment reported in 2017 (1) SCC 148 , State of Punjab Vs. Jagjit Singh and also the effect, in case, if identical benefit has been granted to others. 8. Subject to the above observations, writ petitions stand disposed of. 9. There would be no order as to costs.