Dismissed

State of Raj. and Ors. v. Nathu Singh

Rajasthan HC12 Sept 2018SAW/1555/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court dismissed the special appeals defending a 2008 Industrial Tribunal award that granted supplementary pay to a workman to remove a salary anomaly despite a challenge based on the non-retrospectivity of the 1989 Revised Pay Rules.

What did the court decide?

The appeals are dismissed. The award dated 13th February, 2008, passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Jodhpur, is affirmed.

State of Raj. and Ors. Vs Nathu Singh — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Rajasthan HC (2018)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

¶2

JODHPUR

¶3

D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No. 1555/2011

¶4

State of Rajasthan And Ors.

----Appellants

Versus

Nathu Singh

----Respondent

Connected With D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No. 1556/2011 State of Rajasthan And Ors.

----Appellants

Versus

Shamsuddin

----Respondent

D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No. 1557/2011

¶15

State of Rajasthan And Ors.

----Appellants

Versus

Jaikishan

----Respondent

D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No. 1558/2011

¶21

State of Rajasthan And Ors.

¶22

----Appellants

¶23

Versus

¶24

Nisar Beg D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No. 1554/2011 State of Rajasthan And Ors.

----Respondent

----Appellants

Versus

Mohammed

----Respondent

D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No. 1653/2011 State of Rajasthan And Ors.

----Appellants

Versus

Gordhan

----Respondent

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Mukesh Dave.

¶36

[SAW-1555/2011]

¶37

(2 of 4)

¶38

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

¶39

Order

¶40

12/09/2018

¶41

Learned counsel for the appellants states that factual backdrop of all appeals is the same and thus requests us to refer to the facts in Special Appeal (Writ) No.1555/2011. 2. Six writ petitions filed by the appellants against an award dated 13^th February, 2008 by the Industrial Tribunal, Jodhpur have been dismissed by learned Single Judge of this Court vide impugned order dated 31^st August, 2010. Since we are noting the facts with reference to S.A.W. No.1555/2011, claim of the respondent, who was the claimant before the Industrial Tribunal was premised on the plea that he joined service on 24.01.1959 as a workman at a monthly salary of ₹ 45/-. In the year 1964 he was declared semi permanent as Helper Grade-II and thereafter he was promoted as Helper Grade-I. In the year 1977, he was further promoted as wireman Grade-II. Grievance was that as a wireman Grade-II he was being paid monthly wages of ₹319/- and had continued as Helper Grade-I he would have been entitled to receive Rs.360/- p.m. as salary.

¶42

To put it briefly the case was that an anomaly has come into beings. For a promotional post salary paid was less viz-a-viz the Feeder Post.

¶43

Facts not being in dispute that the award was passed in favour of the workman and reason is simple. It would be an anomaly for a person holding a lower post to be paid higher wages

¶44

[SAW-1555/2011]

¶45

(3 of 4)

¶46

and a person appointed by promotion to the higher would receive less wage.

¶47

The Tribunal also referred to the Rajasthan Civil Service Revised Pay Rules, 1989 which recognized that in such cases, to remove anomaly, stepping up has to be done. 6. Challenging the award the contention of the appellants before the learned Single Judge was that a claim which was being adjudicated related to a period prior to the enforcement of the Rules of 1989 and thus could not be decided in the context of the Rules of 1989. The learned Single Judge has held that Rules of 1989 envisaged removal of such anomaly as was noted by the Industrial Tribunal and thus has dismissed the six writ petitions filed by the appellants.

¶48

Argument in the appeals is the same i.e. that Rules of 1989, having no retrospective operation, could not be relied upon to adjudicate a claim where dispute arose in the year 1977.

¶49

Suffice it to state that the Industrial Tribunal has decided the dispute with reference to the facts by bringing out an anomaly and requiring the anomaly to be removed. The Tribunal has also noted that appellants themselves have recognized the anomaly and had stepped up the pay of the workman but later on, without notice to the workman, had withdrawn the benefit. The Tribunal has referred to the Rules of 1989 to bring home the point that the Government itself recognized the existence of such anomaly and the requirement to remove the anomaly. It is thus not a case where relief was granted on the basis of Rules of 1989.

¶50

We highlight that the reasoning of the Rules of 1989 to remove the anomaly was used by the Tribunal to sustain the primary reasons given by the Tribunal.

¶51

[SAW-1555/2011]

¶52

(4 of 4)

¶53

Thus, we find no merit in the appeals.

¶54

The appeals are dismissed.

¶55

(Dr. PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J (PRADEEP NANDRAJOG),CJ

¶56

Ashutosh

State of Raj. and Ors. v. Nathu Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of Raj. and Ors. v. Nathu Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

State of Raj. and Ors. Vs Rajendra Kumar Bhola

N.I.C.Ltd., Udaipur Vs Smt.Shanta Devi and Ors.

State and Ors. Vs Smt. Sukhi Kanwar and Anr.

State and Anr. Vs Shri Bhanwar Singh and Anr.

Jeevan Ram Vs State of Raj.

Kanti Lal Bheel Vs State of Rajasthan and Ors.