Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 58 (JK)

Joginder Sharma v. State Of J&K

2020-02-10

SANJEEV KUMAR

body2020
JUDGMENT 1. Vide order No. 04-SMDA of 2008-09 dated 21 st July, 2008 issued by respondent No. 2, the petitioner was engaged as Orderly on temporary basis on a consolidated pay of Rs. 2550/- i.e. the minimum basic pay of Class-IV. The engagement made was provisional in nature and subject to approval/confirmation by the Board of Surinsar- Mansar Development Authority. The petitioner claims that ever since he has been continuing and performing his duties as Orderly and is thus entitled to be regularized under the J&K Civil Services (Special Provisions) Act, 2010 , ( for short ' the Act of 2010 hereinafter). 2. It is also submitted by the petitioner that his initial appointment has since been approved/confirmed by the competent authority. The petitioner, in the year 2014, after he rendered more than six years of service came to this Court by way of a writ petition bearing SWP No. 2467/2014 claiming, inter-alia, a direction to the respondents for regularization of his services under the Act of 2010. The writ petition was disposed of by a Bench of this Court vide order dated 11.09.2014 by providing that respondents shall consider the case of the petitioner for regularization of service in terms of the Act of 2010 and release his withheld salary. They were also directed to maintain the service status of the petitioner. It is the case of the petitioner that while the case of the petitioner for regularization is pending consideration before the higher authorities the respondents have declined to give the benefit of pay revision effected vide SRO 193 dated 24.04.2018 to the petitioner, whereby the basic pay scale of the Class-IV has been enhanced to Rs. 14,800/- per month. 3. The petitioner submits that despite the fact that the pay revision has taken place and the basic pay of the Class-IV employees has been raised, the petitioner is being paid Rs. 5740/- per month. The petitioner submits that the benefit of Pay Revision of the year 2018 was given to the petitioner only for a month i.e. for the month of April 2018, but later on it was stopped on the ground that SRO 193 of 2018 was not applicable to the employees working on consolidated basis. 4. 5740/- per month. The petitioner submits that the benefit of Pay Revision of the year 2018 was given to the petitioner only for a month i.e. for the month of April 2018, but later on it was stopped on the ground that SRO 193 of 2018 was not applicable to the employees working on consolidated basis. 4. Respondents have filed their reply and have justified their decision not to give the benefit of Pay revision of the year 2018 to the petitioner on the ground that SRO 193 of 2018 does not apply to the consolidated employees and no revision is required to be made with respect to their wages. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, I am of the view that the stand taken by the respondents is preposterous and totally illogical as is apparent from the very appointment/engagement order of the petitioner that petitioner was appointed as an Orderly on a consolidated pay of Rs. 2550/- which at the relevant point of time represented the minimum basic pay of Class-IV. When the pay revision took place pursuant to the recommendations of 6 th Pay Commission, the consolidated wages of the petitioners were enhanced to 5740/- per month which again represented the basic minimum Pay Scale of Class-IV as per the pay revision. However, the similar benefit which accrued to the petitioner under the J&K Civil Services (Revised) Pay Rules, 2018 issued vide SRO 193 was not extended to the petitioner. 6. The reason and the logic given by the respondents to deny him the benefit of pay revision of the year 2018 is that SRO 193 of 2018 does not envisage the pay revision of the employees engaged on consolidated basis and that it only revises the regular pay scales provided to different categories of the permanent government employees. 7. The plea taken by the respondents to justify their action cannot be accepted for the simple reason that no revision in the consolidated wages is required to be provided by the Pay Revision Rules. The petitioner as per his engagement letter is entitled to the wages equivalent to the minimum basic pay scales of the Class-IV employees and as and when this minimum basic increases by way of pay revision or otherwise the petitioner would accordingly be entitled to the corresponding enhancement in his wages. The petitioner as per his engagement letter is entitled to the wages equivalent to the minimum basic pay scales of the Class-IV employees and as and when this minimum basic increases by way of pay revision or otherwise the petitioner would accordingly be entitled to the corresponding enhancement in his wages. This is the simple logic to understand the controversy raised in this petition. 8. In view of the foregoing, I find merit in this writ petition. The same is, accordingly, allowed. The petitioner is held entitled to the wages @ Rs. 14,800/- per month which represents the basic minimum pay scale of Class-IV in terms of SRO 193 dated 24.04.2018. This benefit of enhanced wages would be available to the petitioner with effect from the date of coming into operation of SRO 193 of 2018 i.e. 24 th April, 2018. Let the respondents re-fix his wages in the aforesaid pay scale and pay him the arrears of the wages that would accrue to him upon retrospective revision w.e.f. 24.04.2018 within a period of two months from the date, a certified copy of this order is served upon the respondent No. 2.