Nirmal Das Vs South Eastern Coalfields Limited

... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vivek Kumar Agrawal, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ravi Ranjan Sinha, Advocate along with Mr. Shubham Singh, Advocate.

¶14

2

¶15

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad

¶16

Order on Board

¶17

07/01/2026

¶18

By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for following

¶19

reliefs:-

¶20

“10.1 This Hon'ble Court be pleased to call for the entire records from respondents for its kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court.

¶21

10.2 That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to direct the respondents to take immediate steps for refixation of basic pay of petitioner as per circular dated 03/05/2007 and pass appropriate orders for giving him all the monetary benefits which he is entitled for including the arrears of salary and arrears of pension and all other consequential benefits.

¶22

10.3 This Hon'ble Court be further pleased to pass such other order(s) or direction(s), as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in favour of the Petitioner against the respondents including the costs of the petition under the facts and in the circumstance of the case and in the interest of justice. Other pending retiral dues if any. may also be directed to be paid to the petitioner by the respondents within a time bound period.”

¶23

Brief facts of the case, is that, the petitioner was initially appointed

¶24

3

¶25

as a Grade-II Clerk in the office of the respondents and, throughout his service career, discharged his duties with utmost sincerity and honesty, owing to which he was granted increments and promotions from time to time, while working as a Grade-II Clerk, vide order dated 04.01.1990, his annual increment was sanctioned and his basic pay was enhanced from Rs. 1,254/- to Rs. 1,302/-, wherein one Shri M.K. Dubey was also extended identical increments and benefits, and thereafter, in the year 1992, the petitioner was promoted to the post of Grade-I Clerk vide order dated 14.08.1992, followed by his further promotion to the post of Senior Clerk in the year 1997 vide order dated 01.07.1997, on both occasions Shri M.K. Dubey being similarly promoted. Subsequently, on account of certain anomalies in departmental records, the Anomaly Committee recommended corrective measures, pursuant to which, while the petitioner was working as Senior Clerk, an order dated 20.01.2000 was issued modifying his date of increment, again extending the same benefit to Shri M.K. Dubey, further, vide order dated 06.02.2006, the petitioner was granted the benefit of Service Linked Upgradation (SLU), which was likewise accorded to Shri M.K. Dubey, followed by issuance of a circular dated 03.05.2007 for implementation of Chapter XII, Para 12.6.1 of the National Coal Wage Agreement-VII, thereafter, on the recommendation of the Departmental Promotion Committee, the petitioner was promoted to the post of Office Superintendent vide order dated 24.01.2008, the same benefit

¶26

4

¶27

being extended to Shri M.K. Dubey as both had joined service on the same date, however, after issuance of the order dated 13.02.2015, the petitioner noticed that his then existing and revised basic pay was lower than that of Shri M.K. Dubey, prompting him to submit representations dated 19.05.2017, 06.12.2017, 12.01.2018, 03.02.2018 and 28.03.2018 seeking correction of his basic pay and parity with Shri M.K. Dubey and Shri Rakesh Sarkar, despite the fact that Shri Rakesh Sarkar was junior to him and that the dates of joining and promotions of the petitioner and Shri M.K. Dubey were identical, nevertheless, in an arbitrary manner, the respondents issued a letter dated 25.05.2018 alleging that Shri Dubey was senior to the petitioner and stating that the anomaly vis-à-vis Shri Rakesh Sarkar would be considered, whereafter the petitioner submitted a detailed clarification on 26.05.2018 seeking arrears of basic pay and consequential benefits at par with Shri Dubey and Shri Sarkar, and again on 27.11.2021 reiterated that his basic pay had remained equivalent to that of Shri Dubey from 1987 to 2001 and that Shri Dubey’s pay was enhanced in July 2006 without extending similar benefit to him, while a junior employee, Shri Rakesh Sarkar, was drawing higher pay, the petitioner further sought information regarding pay fixation, which was refused by the respondents, and thus submits that he is entitled to fixation of basic pay at par with his similarly situated colleagues, particularly Shri M.K. Dubey, and in any event his pay could not have been

¶28

5

¶29

fixed lower than that of his juniors, especially in view of his unblemished service record, and having retired from service on 30.09.2022, he is entitled to arrears of basic pay along with consequential arrears of pension.

¶30

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is aggrieved by the arbitrary and illegal action of the respondents in denying the benefit of Service Link Upgradation (SLU) along with consequential arrears, refixation of pay scale, and revision of pensionary benefits as envisaged under the circular dated 03.05.2007. He further submits that a persistent anomaly in the petitioner’s pay scale has existed since the year 2001, inasmuch as both junior and senior employees are drawing higher pay scales and pensionary benefits as compared to the petitioner, which is wholly unjustified and discriminatory. He further submits that despite the petitioner having submitted several representations highlighting this anomaly, the same are still pending consideration. Learned counsel further draws attention to the return filed by the respondents/SECL, particularly paragraph 8 thereof, wherein it has been specifically admitted that as per the NCWA guidelines, Chapter 12, clauses 12.5 to 12.6.2, anomalies in fixation arising out of SLU upgradation are required to be rectified. He further submits that Clause 12.6.2 categorically provides that it is agreed in principle that if any anomaly is found in the fitment of SLU upgradation, the same must be rectified and, under no circumstances, should a senior employee receive lesser

¶31

6

¶32

pay than a junior. He further submits that the modalities for such rectification are to be discussed by the Standardisation Committee. He further submits that the case of the petitioner is squarely falls within the said provision and, therefore, deserves to be referred to the competent Standardisation Committee for due consideration and appropriate relief.

¶33

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the allegations of arbitrariness made in the petition are emphatically denied, and it is stated that owing to an anomaly concerning Mr. Rakesh Sarkar under NCWA-X, the matter has already been referred to the Anomaly Committee for appropriate redressal, the rest being matters of record. He further submits that the petitioner was initially appointed on 03.09.1985 as a General Mazdoor and was subsequently regularised as Clerk Grade-III on 01.10.1986, that an anomaly existed since 1993 between the petitioner and certain other employees regarding the date of increment, which was duly rectified in the year 2001 for the petitioner and eight others, whereas one Shri M.K. Dubey never raised such a claim, resulting in rectification of the petitioner’s pay and change of his increment date from July to March vide Office Order No. 1967 dated 23.11.2001, which is a matter of record and has already been addressed in the preliminary submissions. He further submits that under the NCWA-VII Circular dated 03.05.2007, SLU benefits were agreed to be protected over and above promotional benefits on 24.01.2008, and that Shri M.K.

¶34

7

¶35

Dubey, who retired in 2020 with last wages of Rs. 80,912.60/-, cannot be compared with the petitioner who retired on 30.09.2022 with last wages of Rs. 1,30,367.40/-, clearly demonstrating that the petitioner is in receipt of higher pensionary benefits. He further submits that alleged anomaly with Mr. Rakesh Sarkar under NCWA-X has already been referred to the Anomaly Committee. He further submits that the petitioner is not entitled to any relief whatsoever, and the petition is liable to be dismissed as the petitioner ought to have availed the alternative remedy available under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

¶36

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

¶37

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and without entering into the merits of the matter, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the concerned respondent authorities to place the case of the petitioner before the Standardisation Committee within a period of sixty days from the date of receipt of copy of this order and to duly consider and decide the same strictly in accordance with law. The respondents are further directed to examine the petitioner’s claim for grant of Service Link Upgradation (SLU) along with all consequential benefits, including payment of arrears, re-fixation of pay scale and revision of pensionary benefits in terms of the circular dated 03.05.2007, as well as to look into and address the alleged anomaly in the petitioner’s pay scale stated to be subsisting since the year 2001,

¶38

8

¶39

and thereafter to pass a reasoned and speaking order within the aforesaid stipulated period.

¶40

Sd/-

¶41

(Amitendra Kishore Prasad)

¶42

Judge

¶43

Raghu Jat

Nirmal Das v. South Eastern Coalfields Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nirmal Das v. South Eastern Coalfields Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Veenu Chaudhary (Died and Deleted) Vs the State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Archana Kose Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ku. Masoom Rathod Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Bharti Axa General Insurance Company Limited Vs Durgesh Kumar @ Rinku Soni

Ram Bhajan Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Punaram Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh