Dismissed

Kamkesh Kumar v. C.g.state Of Power Distribution Comp.ltd.

Chhattisgarh HC18 Jan 2018WPS/669/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition seeking equal pay for equal work, the High Court held the matter premature as the petitioners had not made any representation to the employer. The petition was declined from being entertained with liberty to represent subsequent to approaching the authorities.

What did the court decide?

None. Petition declined to be entertained with liberty to make representation to employer.

Kamkesh Kumar Vs C.g.state Of Power Distribution… — Service and Employment | Chhattisgarh HC (2018)

¶1

NAFR

¶2

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶3

WPS No. 669 of 2018

¶4

Kamkesh Kumar W/o Shri Hinchha Ram Verma Aged About 28 Years R/o Village Salauni Post Dara Tahsil And Police Station Dongargarh District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh., District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh

¶5

Rajendra Sinha S/o Shri Shyam Lal Sinha Aged About 35 Years R/o Village Bilhari Post Gataparkala Tahsil And Police Station Dongargarh District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh., District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh

¶6

Anit Yadav S/o Shri Man Singh Aged About 45 Years R/o Village Bisahutola , Post Chichola Tahsil - Chhuriya , Police Station Chichola District - Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh., District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh

¶7

---- Petitioners

¶8

Versus

¶9

C.G.State Of Power Distribution Comp.Ltd. Through Managing Director Dangniya Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶10

Executive Director ( O And M ) C S P D C L , Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶11

J B S Enterprises ( Contactor ) 9 B - 2 Vindhavav Society Thana West Mumbai - 400601, District : Mumbai, Maharashtra

¶12

---- Respondents

¶13

For petitioners : Mr. Lav Sharma, Advocate

¶14

Hon'ble Shri Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava

¶15

Order on Board

¶16

18/01/2018

¶17

The petitioners by way of this petition seeks a direction to the respondents for paying salary at par with the regular employees in the department on the basis of “Equal Pay For Equal Work”. The petitioners rely upon the judgment of Supreme Court in case State of Punjab & Jagjit Singh and Others, 2017(1) SCC 148.

¶18

However, a perusal of record shows that the petitioners till date have not made any representation to the employer for redressal of their grievances. Without representation being made to the employer for redressal of grievance, this petition at this juncture would be premature and the same is declined from

¶19

being entertained. However, the petitioners are at liberty to approach the respondents by making a detailed representation in the light of judgment of Supreme Court in case of State of Punjab Vs. Jagjit Singh (Supra). In case such a representation is made, it is expected then the authorities concerned shall look into the matter and pass appropriate orders in accordance with rules. The petitioners are at liberty to re-agitate, if situation so warrants.

¶20

With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition stands finally disposed of. No order as to costs.

¶21

Sd/-

¶22

(Manindra Mohan Shrivastava)

¶23

Judge

¶24

Rohit

Kamkesh Kumar v. C.g.state Of Power Distribution Comp.ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kamkesh Kumar v. C.g.state Of Power Distribution Comp.ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Sita Devi Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Kamlesh Kumar Tamrakar Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Anant Kumar Sirdar Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Gopendra Kumar Shrivas Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Sadhna Patel Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Vijay Kumar Patel Vs State Of Chhattisgarh