Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Ramesh Kumar And Ors vs J V V N L And Ors on 12 January, 2017
Author: Ajay Rastogi
Bench: Ajay Rastogi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT
JAIPUR
S.B.Civil Writ Petition No. 15205 / 2016
1. Ramesh Kumar S/o Shri Roop Singh, 1/57 Housing Board,
Jhunjhunu (Raj.)
2. Chandra Kumar Purohit S/o Mool Chand Purohit,, Lakhotiya
Chowk, Bikaner (Raj.)
3. Abhishek Purohit S/o Shri Damodar Prasad Purohit,, Vyaso Ka
Chowk, Bikaner (Raj.)
4. Mubarak Ali S/o Shri Mohd. Amin, Street No. 13,dhobi Talai,
Rani Bazar, Bikaner (Raj.)
5. Satish Kumar Swami S/o Shri Dharamveer Swami, Nathusar
Bass, Malio Ka Mohalla, Bikaner (Raj.)
6. Vishnu Gopal Khatri S/o Shri Ramesh Kumar Khatri, Laxminath
Temple Road, Bikaner (Raj.)
7. Amzad Ali Gauri S/o Shri Saved Amin Ali, 4/277, Near Goswami
Chowk Bikaner (Raj.)
8. Harish Khatri, S/o Shri Om Prakash, In Front of Minarwa
Cinema, Choutinawell, Bikaner (Raj.)
9. Nitin Kumar Sharma S/o Shri Vinod Kumar, Ward No. 1 Near
Vyapaar Mandal , Gajsinghpur, Bikaner (Raj.)
10. Ravi Kant Verma S/o Shri Megh Raj, Near Old Bus Stand, Ward
No. Taranagar Churu (Raj.)
11. Rohit Kataria S/o Shri Vijay Kumar Kataria, 137 K, Ward
No.12, Motilal, Wali Gali, Sangaria
12. Govind Singh S/o Sita Ram, Aaka Wali Dhani, Bizampura, Post
Ojatoo, Tehsil Chirawa, Jhunjhunu (Raj.)
13. Naresh Chahlia S/o Shri Jaita Ram Chahlia, Meghwal Basti,
Noka, Distt. Bikaner (Raj.)
14. Ram Krishan Vyas S/o Shri Parmeshwar Lal Vyas, C149, M.D.V.
Nagar, Bikaner (Raj.)
(2 of 6)
[CW-15205/2016]
15. Piyush Saravag S/o Shri Subhash Chandra, Behind Muni
Ashram, Jhunjhunu (Raj.)
16. Iqbal Ali, S/o Shri Hazi Shokat Ali,, Ward No. 33, Near
Badagarh, Mohalla- Khora Jhunjhunu (Raj.)
17. Shiv Kumar Chejara S/o Om Prakash Chejara, Ward No. 18,
Near Water Works, PO- Mukundgarh, Distt. Jhunjhunu (Raj.)
18. VP Singh S/o Shri Shyam Singh, Mithri Keshari Singh PO-
Devipura, Tehsil Rajgarh, Churu (Raj.)
19. Naresh Kumar S/o Birbal Swami, D-60, Madawamore,
Jhunjhunu (Raj.)
20. Mukesh Kumar Sharma S/o Surendra Kumar Sharma, Ward
No.41, Nathji Ka Tila, Near Jauna Resort, Jhunjhunu (Raj.)
21. Bhavitavya Sharma D/o Shri Rajendra Prasad Sharma W/o Anil
Kumar Sharma, 31, Vivek Nagar, Behind Swrna Jayanti Stadium
Jhunjhunu (Raj.)
22. Sandeep Lamba S/o Shri Hosiyar Singh Lamba, Jakhar Colony,
Ward No.05, Neem Ka Thana
23. Bihari Lal Kumawat S/o Shri Mali Ram Kumawat, V.P.O.
Ghatwa, Tehsil Nawa, District Nagaur (Raj.)
24. Sandeep Kumar Bhadu S/o Shri Banshi Lal Bhadu, Ward No
NR Civil Court Suratgarh (Raj.)
25. Arvind Kumar Sharma S/o Shri Vinay Kumar Sharma, Shastri
Nagar, Near 8 No. School, Ratangarh, Distt. Churu (raj.)
26. Umesh Kumar Tiwari S/o Shri Sagar Mal, Tolaram Sagarmal
Tiwari, Near Moti Chowk, Sardarshahar, Ward No.3, Distt. Churu
(raj.)
27. Hitesh Kumar Harit S/o Shri Bhagwati Prasad Harit, Near Old
Fort, Water Tank, Ward No 23, Ratangarh, Distt. Churu (Raj.)
28. Ramkaran Saini S/o Shri Tara Chand Saini, Village Daulatpura,
Post Katrathal, Tehsil & Distt. Sikar (Raj.)
(3 of 6)
[CW-15205/2016]
29. Ram Lakhan Saini S/o Shri Jivan Ram Saini, Ward No. 25,
Dhani Badbor Wakli Pushp Nagar, Shrimadhopur, Sikar (raj.)
30. Amit Kumar Yadav S/o Mohan Lal Yadav, Station Road, Ranoli,
Distt. Sikar (Raj.)
31. Bhawani Singh S/o Shri Narayan Singh, Villae Palsana, Distt.
Sikar (Raj)
32. Ajay Kumar S/o, Vpo Kajlan Tehsil Buhana Distt. Jhunjhunu
(Raj.)
33. Jaiveer Singh S/o Rampal Singh, Loyal Marg, Kithana, Tehsil
Chirawa, Jhunjhunu (Raj.)
34. Dinesh Kumar Chejara S/o Shri Shankar Lal Chejara, Ward No
02, Chejaron Ka Mohalla, Mandawa Road, Mukundgarh, Distt.
Jhunjhunu (Raj.)
35. Sunil Kumar S/o Shri Lal Chand, Village Jaimpura, Post
Kaliyasar Via Tamkas, Distt. Jhunjhunu (Raj.)
36. Rakesh Chand Godara S/o Shri Girdhari Ram Godara, Vpo
Lalamdesar (Bara), Nokha, Bikaner (raj.)
37. Nidhi Tanwar S/o Mr. Ganesh Lal Tanwar, 4/144, Rati Talai,
Banswara (Raj.)
38. Sunil Kumar Mehra S/o Shri Dearam Ji, Near Berwa Basti,
Suerpur(Raj.)
39. Pradeep Kumar S/o Shri Ajay Kumar, Meeno Ka Mohalla Ward
No. 16, Singhana, Tehsil Buhana, Jhunjhunu (raj.)
----Petitioners
Versus
1. Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. Through the Managing Director,
Vidyut Bhawan, Janpath, Jaipur-302005
2. Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. Through the Managing Director,,
Vidyut Bhawan, Panchsheel Nagar, Makadwali Road, Ajmer (Raj.)
(4 of 6)
[CW-15205/2016]
3. Jodhpur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. Through the Managing
Director,, New Power House Industrial Area Jodhpur-342003 (Raj.)
4. Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Utpadan Nigam Ltd. Trough the
Managing Director, Vidyut Bhawan, Jyoti Nagar, Janpath, Jaipur-
302005 (Raj.)
5. Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd. Through the
Managing Director,, Vidyut Bhawan, Jyoti Nagar, Janpath, Jaipur-
302005 (Raj.)
----Respondents
_____________________________________________________ For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Vigyan Shah. For Respondent(s) :
_____________________________________________________ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY RASTOGI Judgment 12/01/2017 The petitioner after due participation in the process of selection initiated for the post of Data Entry Operator pursuant to the advertisement dt.11.09.2012 (Annex.1) and after their final selections, appointed by the concerned authorities and discharging their regular duties.
Their grievance is that in the advertisement, pursuant to which the process was initiated for the post of Data Entry Operator, Pay Band & Grade Pay as indicated was PB-I 5200- 20200 & Rs.1900 respectively and they all are appointed in the Grade Pay of Rs.1900/- but later on it revealed that as regards the State Government is concerned for the post of Data Entry Operator, which was later on re-designated as Informatics Assistant with the same qualification, their pay was revised in the (5 of 6) [CW-15205/2016] year 2008 and their Pay Band is PB-I 5200-20200 & Grade Pay is Rs.2400/- and that was finally accepted by the Power Companies and so also by the Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited mutatis mutandis with the pay scales revised by the Finance Department, Government of Rajasthan from time to time, as reveals from order dt.01.10.2008.
Counsel for the petitioner submits that once the Company has accepted and adopted mutatis mutandis the pay-scales pursuant to the order passed by the State Government for its employees who were appointed as Informatics Assistant (Data Entry Operator) which is in the Grade Pay of Rs.2400/- and there appears no justification for the respondents to fix the petitioner in the Grade Pay of Rs.1900/-, although its was notified in the advertisement but the person who is going for employment has no right of say and remains on the mercy of the employer but the fact is that the petitioners were not aware of the Grade pay which has been notified by the State Government & accepted by the respondents and they have joined with the Grade Pay of Rs.1900/- keeping in view that this may be the Grade Pay indicated/notified in the advertisement and after this fact came to their notice that the Grade Pay of Rs.2400/- which has been laid down and prescribed by the State Government and mutatis mutandis adopted by the respondents, they approached the authorities and made representation and finally served legal notice but no one has paid heed and that compelled them to approach this court in writ jurisdiction u/Art.226 of the Constitution.
What has been contended by the petitioners prima faice (6 of 6) [CW-15205/2016] appears to be valid and justified but this court is not inclined to proceed further in the matter and consider is appropriate that let a self contained representation be made by the petitioners with the relevant notifications, referred to supra, to the Managing Director of the Company-AVVNL along with copy of this order and if such a representation is made, the authority is expected to examine and decide their representation in accordance with law within a period of three months and communicate to the petitioners. Thereafter, if the petitioners are aggrieved by the communication made, they are at liberty to avail remedy which the law permits to them and if the authority fails to pass order on the representation made within the specified time, the petitioners are at liberty to file a misc. application for revival of the instant petition.
Consequently, with the observation made supra, the instant writ petition stands disposed of.
(AJAY RASTOGI)J. Solanki DS, PS/224