Allowed

Baijnath Shrivas v. State of Chhattisgarh and Others

Chhattisgarh HC3 Oct 2013WP/4740/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court held that Skilled Attendants at Government Engineering College, Bilaspur, were discriminated against compared to counterparts at Raipur. The Court allowed the writ petition and directed the State to grant equal pay scale from 26.12.1980 with interest.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners granted equal pay scale of Rs. 155-252 applicable to similarly placed employees in Government Engineering College, Raipur, from 26.12.1980, with arrears and 6% per annum interest payable w

Baijnath Shrivas Vs State of Chhattisgarh and… — Service and Employment | Chhattisgarh HC (2013)

< d

c- C f ^O'.

s/we^ BENCH

IN T8E HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGABHJk.TBILAS£l!R

¶5

W.P. (S) No.

¶6

PETmONER:

¶7

Banvari Sahu, S/o Budhram Sahu, Aged about 57 years, Skitted Attendant OovefHtHcBt EngttiseriagCoUege Bilaspur (C.O.)

¶8

Veyaas

¶9

RESPONDENTS;.

¶10

StateofC.G.'Rtrou^i SeeretEtfy^>epartmeat of Teehnieal Educatioa Kaipur (C.G,)

¶11

.^> ^ ..<-r"y.. 2. Addl. Director ofTechaicai EdueatioaDepartnient ofTecltnical ^s>^' Educatioa,BairaB Bazaf ifeaipur (C.GJ ^^^^.--" ....•••^>-'q.-'' AP-'' .'tAl^'l.-"^^'^^ 3. Prineijpal Govt. EBgiaeerBig Coiiege ^y". Bilaspur(C.O.) <;€< .e?*'' wmr plTrriQN UNDER ARTICLE issan coNSTmoN OF INBIA yoR ISSUANCE QP APra.OPRIATE WWT/WRttS.MRECTroN ETC.IN THE NATtBffi Ot? MANOAMU&CERTtRARY ANBMOR^^^^A^~ SUrTABUE WMT (W LIKENATIJRE.

'b^;

^7 ^>v

/^-^

HIGH COURT OF CHHAmSGARH. Bli-ASPUR

¶18

SB: HON'BLE PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA. J

¶19

WRIT PETITION (S) No. 4740 of 2006

¶20

PETITIONER Baijnath Shrivas (died) through Durga Bai

¶21

Vs.

¶22

RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh and others

¶23

WRIT PETITION (Sl No. 5022 of2006

¶24

PETITIONER Banvari Sahu

¶25

Vs.

¶26

RESPONDENTS State of Chhatysgarh and others

¶27

Present:

¶28

Mr. Neeraj Choubey, counsel for the petitioner(s), Mr. A.V. Sridhar, Panel Lawyer, for the State.

¶29

ORALORDER

¶30

(03.10.2013)

¶31

The petitioners in both the writ petitions (which includes the widow of petitioner Baijnath Shrivas in W.P(S).No.4740/2006) are working as Skilled Attendants in the Government Engineering College, Bilaspur.' They have prayed for equal salary as is paid to theu- coiinter-parts in the Govemment Engineering College, Raipur. Therefore, since both the writ petitions involve cominon issue, they are decided by fhis common order.

¶32

In W.P(S).No.4740/2006, Respondent/State has ffled an application (I.A.No. 1/2007) for disinissal of the writ petition on the ground that the original petitioner having died during the pendency of the writ petition, the cause of action does not survive in favour of the legal heir for continuing the writ petition, however, it is to be seen that by order dated 01.07.2009, this Court has already allowed prayer for substitution of name of legal heir of the deceased

¶33

petitioner^{andotherwisealsothebenefitwhichmightaccruein} favour of the deceased petitioner shall be payable to his legal heir, hence the said application for dismissal of W.P(S).No.4740/2006 is dismissed.

¶34

The facts of the case, briefly, stated are that the petitioners are working as SkQled Attendants in Government Engineering CtiUege, Bilaspur. They had earlier preferred a joint writ petition bearing W.P. No.6613/2005 which was disposed off on 03.01.2006 vide Annexure P-10 with a direction to the competent aufhority of the respondents to consider their prayer for grant of "equal pay for equal work and pass appropriate order within a period of 4 months. Pursuant to the said order, the petitioners preferred representation which has been dismissed vide inipugned order dated 24.05.2006 (Annexure P-l).

¶35

¶36

According to the petitioners, they are working as Skilled Attendants in Government Engineering College, BUaspur and are paid^inferior pay^scalethanthe pay^{scaleaUowedinfavourof} similarly placed Skilled Attendants working in the Govemment Engineering College, Raipur. According to them, both the Engineering CoUeges being Government Engineering College under the Department of the Technical Education, grant of inferior pay scale to the petitioners is discriminatoiy, arbitrary and iUegal.

¶37

According to the leamed State Counsel, petitioners were earlier worldng on daily wages and were later on promoted as SkilledAttendants in the year 1974. Therefore, they are govemed by M.P. Manpower Planning Department (Technical Branch) Class IV 1982) and are not Recmitment Rules, 1982 (for short "Rules, govemed by M.P. Ekiucation Department Technical Branch Class-III (Non-ministerial) Recmitment Rules 1980 (for short "Rules, 1980)" ^/ and as such they are not discriminated in the matter of grant of

¶38

°) o

¶39

-•5-

¶40

pay-scale.

¶41

This Court has heard leamed counsel for the parties at length and perused fhe record.

¶42

It is not the case of the State/respondents that Skilled Attendants working in Engineering College, Raipur, are getting the same pay scale as is paid to the petitioners.

¶43

One Mukund Lal Yadu working as SkiUed Attendant in Govemment Engineering College, Raipur, had earlier preferred M.P.No.64/1982 in the High Court of M.P., claiming similar payscale as is granted to his counter-parts in the Engineering Colleges at Uyain. By judgment dated 09.07.1984 (Annexure P-7), the said writ petition was allowed by the M.P. High Court. In the said judgment, it has been held that different Engineering colleges managed by the Dtrector of Technical Education is obliged to pay equal wages to all similarly placed SkSled Attendants who perform similar job. It has also been held fherein that artificial banner of classtfication into various classes is not sufficient to justtfy discrimination which is otherwise not permitted under the Statutory Rules. The High Court concluded that fhe said petitioner is entitled to the pay scale of Rs. 155-252 from January 1981 as is granted to his counter-parts in other Engineering Colleges of the State.

¶44

Alfhough the doctrine of eqiial pay for equal work is a part of directive principles of the State PoUcy as enshrined in Article 39(d) of fhe Constitution, however, in the matter of Randhir Singh Vs. Union of India AIR, 1982 S.C. 879, the Supreme Court held that it is the constitutional obligation of the State to grant equcd pay for equal work considering it to be an integral part of constitutional guarantee under Articles 14 &16 of the Constitution of India. Although the leamed State Courisel have referred to the Rules of '•y. 1982 and 1980 to carve out a case of classification based on

¶45

0)\

¶46

¶47

different set of rules, however, no docuinent has been filed to substantiate the avemient and submission that the petitioners are employees working in the Manpower Planning Department (Technical Branch) of the State Govemment. Therefore, the contention that the petitioners are govemed by 1982 Rules does not appear to be well founded. Even otherwise the order rejecting their representation has been issued by the Directorate of Technical Education and not by the Manpower Planning Departraent (Technical Branch) and the said impugned order does not mention this defence which is now sought to be raised in the retum. 10. In view of the law laid down by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the matter of Mohinder Singh Gill and another Vs. The Chief Election Com.m.issioner, New Delhi and others, (1978) 1 SCC 405 it is not permissible for the respondents to iinprove their case in the retum on the basis of some reasoning which is not mentioned in the impugned order by which fhe petitioners' representation^has been rejected.

¶48

It is also to be seen that Schedule-I of Rules of 1980 provides fhe names of posts included in the service and fheir corresponding pay scales in the .Engineering CoUeges of Jabalpur, Raipur, Rewa, Bilaspur and Ujjain. Entiy No.28 of the said Schedule mentions "SfciIIed name of the as Assistun</Attendant" with post cprresponding pay-scale mentioned as Rs. 155-252/-. Therefore, it is this pay scale which has been inade adniissible to the Skilled Assistant/Attendant worldng in Govemment Engineering Colleges of Raipur and Bilaspur, therefore, in absence of any plea in the retum that. Skilled Attendants working in Govemment Engineering College Raipur are getttng the same pay scale as is granted to the who are working as SkiUed Attendants in the petitioners Govemment Engineering College, Bilaspur, the petitioners have

¶49

'v -5^

¶50

successfi-illy made out a case of discrunination which is not permissible underArticles 14 & 16 ofthe Constitution oflndia. 12. As an upshot of the above discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the writ petitions deserve to be and are hereby allowed in the foUowing terms:

¶51

(i) The petitioners are entitled for the saine pay s.cale of SkiUed Attendant which are granted to the Skilled Attendant working in Govemment Engineering College, Raipur.

¶52

<B-

¶53

(ii) The petitioners are entitled for the said pay scale froin the date of enforcement of Rules of 1980 i.e., from 26.12.1980. They are thus also entitled for the entire arrears on the basis of calculation of applicable pay scale under different revision of pay Rules. The arrears of pay shall be paid to the petitioners within a period of4 months from today alongwith interest @ 6% per annum.

¶54

There shaU be no order as to costs. (ui)

¶55

s^^6^a ^^^at' ^^^

¶56

Baijnath Shrivas v. State of Chhattisgarh and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Baijnath Shrivas v. State of Chhattisgarh and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Purna Chatterjee Vs State Of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Sanjay Kumar Mishra Vs State Of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Smt. Anshu Gupta and Anr. Vs State Of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Karan Singh Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Smt. Ayodhya Bai Vs the Executive Dir.Fin.C.G.Po.Ho.and Ors.

Bhupendra Baghel Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.