Uttarakhand High Court
Pankaj Sanwal And Others vs State Of Uttarakhand And Another on 28 September, 2015
Author: Servesh Kumar Gupta
Bench: Servesh Kumar Gupta
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Writ Petition (S/S) No.1081 of 2015
Pankaj Sanwal and Others ... Petitioners
Versus
State of Uttarakhand & Others ... Respondents
Mr. M.C. Pant, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. N.P. Sah, Standing Counsel for the State/respondents.
28th September, 2015
Hon'ble Servesh Kumar Gupta, J.
Having heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned State Counsel, it transpires that the instructions issued by the Director General of Employment and Training, Ministry of Labour and Employment, Union of India, dated 30th December, 2008 entailed with the salaries of instructor, appointed on contractual basis should be at par with regular faculty. These instructions were based on the recommendations of National Council for Vocational Training.
It was further recommended that the payment on such lines should be followed uniformly by the State Government in all the ITIs and ITCs, so the State Government had to pay the salary of contractual faculty on such instruction at par with the consolidated monthly salary of a regular appointed instructor of the Institute and that should be reflected affiliation in proforma.
Pursuant to such directions, appropriate correspondence was initiated right from the level of Director General, Training and Employment, Uttarakhand to all the Joint Directors (Training) as well as to the Nodal Principals of respective Institutions, it appears that since the directions could not be rectified, hence the issue was challenged before this Court and ultimately, was adjudicated in Special Appeal No.258 of 2012, Balraj Singh Negi Vs. State of Uttarakhand.
2Division Bench of this Court, comprising Hon'ble the Chief Justice, rendered its judgment dated 11th December, 2012 holding as under:-
"We, accordingly, hold that the State Government, in the matter of payment of remuneration to the appellant, a contract faculty, is bound to honour the directions contained in the said letter dated 30th December, 2008 of the Director General of Employment and Training.
The appeal is, accordingly, allowed. The judgment and order under appeal is set aside and the writ petition is disposed of by directing the State Government to pay the difference of the remuneration to the appellant within three months from today and to continue to pay remuneration to him in accordance with the directions contained in the said letter dated 30th December, 2008, until such time, appellant continues to discharge duties as a contract faculty."
Feeling aggrieved, State Government filed a review application no.639 of 2013 and after consideration, the same was rejected on 25th April, 2014 by Division Bench.
Even, Special Leave Petition preferred by the State Government in Hon'ble Apex Court, was also dismissed on 23rd February, 2015, which is annexure no.11 with the petition. So, the State Government complied the orders viz-a- viz to Mr. Balraj Sing Negi and not with remaining similarly situated instructors in ITIs wherefor petitioners have knocked the door of this Court.
Having heard pros and cons, I feel that there is no scope remained for the State Government to deviate from the orders of the Division Bench dated 11th December, 2013 (supra) and hereby mandamus issued to the respondents (State Government) to grant arrears of pay to all the petitioners w.e.f. 1st January, 2009 to 30th May, 2013 because 30th May, 2013, the payment is made in consonance with the directions of Union of India. Such arrear shall be paid to all the petitioners as quickly as possible. Anticipating the 3 financial constraints and exigencies of the State Government, the Court directs to make the payment of entire arrear in four quarterly installments from the date of receiving the certified copy of this order.
In the above terms, this writ petition is hereby allowed.
All pending applications stand disposed of accordingly.
(Servesh Kumar Gupta, J.)
Nadim 28.09.2015