Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Urban Improvement Trust vs Budh Singh on 5 April, 2019
Bench: Mohammad Rafiq, Goverdhan Bardhar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
D. B. Special Appeal Writ (SAW) No. 666/2018
In
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1882/2016
Urban Improvement Trust Alwar through its Secretary.
----Appellant
Versus
Budh Singh son of Shri Nathu Singh, by caste Rajput, resident of
Shivaji Park, Vijay Mandir Road, Alwar (Raj.)
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Ajay Shukla.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Devendra Kumar Bhardwaj.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOVERDHAN BARDHAR
Judgment
05/04/2019
This appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 15.05.2017 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court whereby writ petition filed by the respondent has been allowed in part in following terms:
"Consequently, following the principle of equal pay for equal work, and the mandate of law as interpreted in the case of State of Punjab & Ors. Vs. Jagjit Singh & Ors. (supra), as prayed, the present petition is allowed to the limited extend by holding that the petitioner shall be entitled to grant of minimum regular pay scale and the salary of the petitioner shall be fixed in the regular minimum pay scale from the date of his initial appointment. However, arrears to be paid to the petitioner shall be restricted to thirty- eight months before filing of the writ petition. The respondent shall however, calculate the regular pay scale of the petitioner by extending revision of pay scale as was admissible to other employees from time to time."
(Downloaded on 27/06/2019 at 11:02:00 PM)
(2 of 4) [SAW-666/2018] Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that as far as prayer of the respondent-writ petitioner in the writ petition for regularisation is concerned, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner did not press the said prayer but contended that the writ petitioner be paid minimum pay scale as being paid to other employees including persons junior to him. Reliance was placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Punjab & Others Vs. Jagjit Singh & Others, (2017) 1 SCC 148. It is argued that the learned Single Judge has directed that the respondent-petitioner shall be entitled to minimum pay scale from the date of initial appointment. However, the arrears shall be restricted to 38 months before filing of the writ petition.
Referring to the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Punjab & Others Vs. Jagjit Singh & Others (supra), learned counsel argued that the supreme Court in para 55 of the Report modified judgment of the High Court by directing that concerned employees would be entitled to the minimum of the pay scale, of the category to which they belong, but would not be entitled to allowances attached to the post held by them. He also argued that there was no justification for granting arrears of the salary for 38 months before filing of the writ petition, particularly when the writ petition itself was filed on 02.02.2016.
Learned counsel for the respondent-writ petitioner submitted that vide award dated 11.06.1999 passed by the Labour Court, Bharatpur, Camp Alwar (for short 'the Labour Court') not only termination of the petitioner was declared illegal but he was declared entitled to reinstatement with continuity of service and (Downloaded on 27/06/2019 at 11:02:00 PM) (3 of 4) [SAW-666/2018] full back wages. Reference is made to order dated 01.12.2006 issued by the Director, National Capital Region Scheme and Secretary, Urban Improvement Trust, Alwar, in which pay scale was granted to Kailash Chand Saini; Laxman Singh and Daulat Ram Sharma, who according to learned counsel for the respondent, were junior to the respondent-writ petitioner.
So far as prayer of regularisation is concerned, the same cannot be now considered and granted because the respondent-petitioner himself did not press that prayer and has not not challenged that part of judgment of the learned Single Judge which has now attained finality qua him. The respondent- writ petitioner confined his prayer in writ petition up to payment of minimum pay scale at par with his juniors. The Supreme Court in State of Punjab & Others Vs. Jagjit Singh & Others (supra), in para 55, modified the directions of the High Court, which were challenged therein and directed that concerned employees would be entitled to the minimum of the pay scale of the category to which they belong but would not be entitled to allowances attached to the post held by them. We therefore direct that the respondent-petitioner would be entitled to only the minimum of the pay scale of the category of post on which he was appointed, but would not be entitled to any allowances attached to that post.
Coming now to the arrears to be paid to the respondent- petitioner, learned Single Judge has not given any justification as to why arrears were confined to 38 months before filing of the writ petition. Writ petition was filed on 02.02.2016 and it was decided vide judgment dated 15.05.2017. The basis on which arrears for 38 months anterior to filing of the writ petition have been granted is (Downloaded on 27/06/2019 at 11:02:00 PM) (4 of 4) [SAW-666/2018] not discernible from the judgment. In the normal course, we would have set aside that direction and confined payment of arrears only from the date of filing of the writ petition, but we are informed that in compliance of order of this Court, arrears have been paid to the respondent-petitioner. We therefore do not intend to interfere with that part of the directions. The appeal is accordingly disposed of. It goes without saying that as and when the minimum pay scales are revised, the respondent-petitioner would be entitled to such revised pay scales.
(GOVERDHAN BARDHAR),J (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ),J Manoj/81 (Downloaded on 27/06/2019 at 11:02:00 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)