Petitioner challenged an order denying wage difference for Mining Sardar post, claiming job enrichment without Gas-testing Certificate. Court found petitioner not officially promoted; approved salary raised upon actual promotion via DPC.
Application to quash order denying wage difference for Mahmito Sardar post dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(S) No. 1869 of 2004
Md. Manawer Ansari ..… Petitioner
Versus
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN
--------For the Petitioner : Mr. Rahul Dev, Advocate For the CCL : Mr. A.K.Mehta, Advocate ---------
08/Dated: 12th February, 2021
Heard learned counsel for the parties through V.C.
2. The instant writ application has been preferred by the petitioner praying therein for quashing the order dated 6/8.9.2003 whereby the representation of the petitioner in pursuance to the order passed by this Court in W.P.(S) No. 1587 of 2002 has been disposed of holding that the demand made by the petitioner for payment of difference of wages was not justified as the petitioner did not have Gas-testing Certificate at the relevant point of time.
3. Mr. Rahul Dev, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had earlier moved before this Court praying for a direction upon the Respondents for payment of salary as Mining Sardar since the petitioner was working on the post of Mining Sardar with full satisfaction since 01.03.2000.
2
4. The said writ application was disposed of by directing the petitioner to file a fresh representation and the Respondents were directed to pass a necessary order. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner filed representation and the same was rejected by holding as under:- “Since you were not qualifying the eligibility norms under reference the stipulated provisions and you were assigned with a view of job enrichment, the demand made by you is not justified at all.”
5. Mr. Dev draws attention of this Court towards the proviso of Regulation 194 (2) of Coal Mines Regulations Act, 1957 wherein it is stipulated that any workman who was holding a “Sardar certificate” was not supposed to hold a ‘Gas-testing Certificate’ if he is working in opencast Mines. Relying upon the aforesaid provisions, he contended that the petitioner is entitled for his salary for the post of Sardar as he was working as Mining Sardar in opencast Mines.
6. Learned counsel further referred to Annexure-5 to the writ application by contending that pick and choose method is being used by the respondents in giving salary of Mining Sardar, as such the impugned order deserves to be dismissed.
7. Mr. A.K.Mehta, learned counsel for the respondentCCL submits that the only question lies for consideration before this Court is that whether the petitioner is entitled
3
for the relief of difference of wages for the post of Mining Sardar although he was not regularized to that post. He further contended that the petitioner was not having requisite qualification and he was designated only as EPM Grade-E worker from 01.08.2001 to 15.07.2002 that is the date when he was authorized to work as Mining Sardar.
He further referred the cadre scheme for Mining Supervisory employees which is annexure-B to the counter affidavit and submits that as per the cadre scheme for Mining Supervisory employee there are three requirements to be promoted for the post of Mining Sardar which includes Mining Sardar Certificate, Gas-testing Certificate and valid First Aid Certificate and also having an experience for 5 years in coal mines and further his promotion to the post of Mining Sardar should be through DPC.
He further referred to the representation filed by the petitioner which clearly transpires that he has been promoted to the post of Mining Sardar by the DPC vide office order dated 16.07.2002 and which has already been approved by competent authority.
8. Mr. Mehta tries to impress this Court that though in the regulation it has been stated that Gas-Testing Certificate is not required for the person who is working as Mining Sardar in opencast mines, but the fact remains that
4
there are several other qualifications which is required to be promoted for the post of Mining Sardar and the petitioner was given the work for job enrichment.
He concluded his argument by submitting that the moment petitioner has been promoted through DPC, which took all the consideration; he is getting the salary of Mining Sardar. He reiterated that the petitioner was assigned the job of Mining Sardar with a view of job enrichment.
9. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the documents available on record and the averments made in the respective affidavits, it appears that so far as the ground of pick and choose method adopted by the respondent-companies is concerned; the same is not sustainable in the eye of law because in Annexure-5 there is pay slip of two persons showing equal to the petitioner, but the fact remains that they were already Mining Sardar rather the petitioner was EPH-E; as such, first ground of challenge is not sustainable.
So far as second ground of challenge that as per regulation 194 proviso petitioner was not supposed to hold a Gas-testing certificate since he was working in the opencast mines; the fact remains that the petitioner was never promoted to the post of Mining Sardar and he was just having certificate of Mining Sardar and he was just given additional work of Mining Sardar for his job
5
enrichment which clearly transpires from the impugned order.
Even otherwise, from cadre scheme circulated vide instruction I.I No. 33 dated 22.6.1980, there are three certificates required for promotion as Mining Sardar which includes Mining Sardar, Gas-Testing Certificate and valid First Aid Test Certificate.
10. In view of the aforesaid facts it is clear that the petitioner was not at all promoted to the post of Mining Sardar at the relevant time; rather he was just given additional work of Mining Sardar for his job enrichment, and the moment he has been promoted to the post of Mining Sardar through DPC, he is getting the salary of Mining Sardar.
11. At this stage, it is necessary to address the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner that the cadre scheme was for promotion to the post of Mining Sardar, as such the same is not applicable to him. But from documents (Annexure-5 Series) it appears that the designation of this petitioner was EPH-E. Meaning thereby to say that he was not a Mining Sardar, as such the argument that cadre instruction was required for promotion to the post of Mining Sardar and the same is not applicable to this petitioner; is misconceived.
12. At this stage, it is also pertinent to mention here that
6
though the impugned order there is not much discussion with regard to cadre allocation division, duties and responsibility of Sardar and/ or other things rather the only ground which has been given to dismiss the claim of the petitioner is that the petitioner was not qualifying the eligibility norms under reference, as such the case should be remitted to them to pass a fresh order; in this regard this Court is of the view that the impugned order is of the year 2003 and no fruitful purpose would be served by remitting the case back to the competent authority to pass a fresh order, inasmuch as, after promotion to the post of Mining Sardar the petitioner was getting the due salary which has not been questioned by him; as such, only on technical ground I refrain from remitting the case back to the competent authority to pass a fresh order.
13. In view of the aforesaid findings, I do not find any merit to interfere with the impugned order and the same is dismissed.
(Deepak Roshan, J.)
Amardeep/
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner was regularly promoted to the post of Mining Sardar requiring requisite qualifications including Gas-testing Certificate.
Whether the claim for difference of wages based on job enrichment holds merit when the petitioner was not officially promoted.
Whether the impugned order rejecting the wage difference claim should be quashed and remanded for fresh decision.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Md. Manawer Ansari
Central Coalfields Limited
Dy. General Manager/DKR Project
Chief General Manager
Superintendent of Mines
Personnel Manager
Deeepak Roshan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court