Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 641 (MP)

Abhishek Vishwakarma v. State of M. P.

2020-05-28

VISHAL DHAGAT

body2020
ORDER 1. Petitioners have filed this writ petition seeking relief to pay wages to them at collector rate from date of their appointment i.e. 04/01/2012. Petitioners have also made a prayer to quash impugned order dated 28.05.2015. By the said order, directions were issued by Chief Medical & Health Officer Jabalpur to outsource the work of Maternal & Child Tracking System (MCTS) feeding per entry/updation as per letter dated 27.01.2014. The arrangement of outsourcing the work will come to an end when State Government will appoint MIS Operator in Government Primary Health Centre. 2. The grievance of the petitioners is that they are arbitrarily switched over from monthly honorarium of skilled labour per month at Collector rate to payment to be made on basis of per entry rates as per letter of government dated 27.01.2014. The said action is arbitrary in nature and therefore Annexure P2 dated 28.05.2015 may be quashed and payment may be made to petitioners at Collector rate. 3. Respondents had filed their reply and stated therein that petitioners are doing data entry in respect of registration of pregnant women as well as vaccination done to newborn babies. Payment of petitioners is to be made as per circular dated 27.01.2014. As per the circular, amount of Rs.15 comes on registration of one pregnant women for her entire check up till the time of delivery and vaccination of child of newborn baby also comes to Rs.15. As per circular dated 27.01.2014 Maternal and Child Tracking System Operator has to be paid on basis of entry made by him and not on basis of Collector rates. No discrimination is being done with petitioners. Some of the Operators are being paid at monthly rates but payment of such operators is made by Medical College, Jabalpur and not by answering respondents. It is further submitted that petitioners have not disclosed the entries made by them with effect from April 2015 and therefore, no payment could be made to them. If petitioners disclose the details of entries which have been made by them then payment will be made to them. 4. Heard the counsel for the petitioner as well as respondents. 5. The only grievance of the petitioners in this petition is that they ought to have been paid at monthly rates decided by Collector for skilled daily wager and not on the basis of rates per entry. 6. 4. Heard the counsel for the petitioner as well as respondents. 5. The only grievance of the petitioners in this petition is that they ought to have been paid at monthly rates decided by Collector for skilled daily wager and not on the basis of rates per entry. 6. It is argued by the counsel for the petitioners that respondents cannot arbitrarily change the rates of remuneration to be paid to petitioners. Petitioners were engaged for MCTS entry and they were to be paid monthly honorarium of skilled labourers as per order dated 04.01.2012. The rates of payment cannot be changed at the whims of the respondents and order dated 28.05.2015 is arbitrary in nature. Perused order dated 04.01.2012 contained in Annexure P3. Petitioner was engaged on the basis of monthly honorarium of skilled labourer. Engagement of petitioners was till 31.03.2013. Thereafter, by circular dated 27.01.2014, petitioners were to be paid per entry and not on monthly honorarium of skilled labourer. The engagement of petitioners had come to an end on 31.03.2013 on monthly honorarium basis. Thereafter, decision has been taken by circular dated 27.01.2014 to make payment to petitioners on basis of per entry made by them on Maternal and Child Tracking System. Petitioners had not challenged circular dated 27.01.2014. Petitioners have challenged the order dated 28.05.2015 which is only information given to Incharge Officers to make payment to petitioners as per circular dated 27.01.2014. In absence of challenge to circular dated 27.01.2014, it cannot be ordered that petitioners should be paid on monthly basis and not per entry basis. Since petitioners are daily wagers till 31.03.2013 and they were paid on monthly basis till 2015 and after issuance of circular dated 27.01.2014 the work of entry to be made on Maternal and Child Tracking System software is outsourced and petitioners are being paid as outsourced persons per entry. After issuance of circular dated 27.01.2014, petitioners are neither daily wagers nor contract workers and they are working only as outsourced persons engaged for doing entries on MCTS. 7. In view of above, writ petition filed by the petitioners is partly allowed to the extent that respondents will make payment to petitioners in respect of entries made by them on production of record of entries made by them as per circular dated 27.01.2014. 8. With the aforesaid direction, writ petition is disposed off.