Himachal Pradesh High Court
Ashwani Kumar & Others vs State Of H.P. & Others on 30 August, 2019
Author: Sureshwar Thakur
Bench: Sureshwar Thakur
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
SHIMLA
CWP No. 5515 of 2012
Reserved on 20.8.219
.
Date of decision: 30.8.2019
Ashwani Kumar & others ....Petitioners.
Versus
State of H.P. & others ...Respondents.
Coram:
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sureshwar Thakur, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes
For the petitioners: Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, Advocate.
For the respondents: Mr. Hemant Vaid Addl. A.G. with
Mr. Y.S. Thakur & Mr. Vikrant
Chandel Dy. A.Gs.
Sureshwar Thakur, Judge:
The petitioners, are, rendering service, as, AccountantscumClerks in Kasturba Gandhi Balika Vidyalayas, (for short, as, KGBVs), in, different districts, of, State of Himachal Pradesh. It is averred, on, affidavit that certain revised guidelines, stand issued, by the authority concerned, for, hence implementing, the, Kasturba Gandhi 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
::: Downloaded on - 29/09/2019 02:54:46 :::HCHP -2-Balika Vidyalayas Scheme, and, therethrough, a, decision has been taken, by the respondent concerned, to merge the afore .
scheme, with the Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan (SSA) programme w.e.f. 1.4.2007, (a) and, thereafter it is further averred, that, the salary drawn by the similarly situate Accountants/Clerks, appointed under SSA Scheme, be directed to be the salary,also disbursable to the petitioners, as they, perform work similar, the SSA Scheme.
r to as, performed by the AccountantscumClerks appointed under
2. Tritely, the petitioners, are, claiming parity, of, pay, with, similar situate AccountantscumClerks, appointed under the SSA Scheme. The afore conundrum appertaining, to, the parity of pay, interse, similar situate employees, is, to be resolved, (a), in consonance with paragraph29, of the verdict, rendered, by the Hon'ble Apex Court, in case titled, Oshiar Prasad & others vs. Employers in Relation to Management of Sudamdih Coal Washery, of, M/s Bharat Coking Coal Ltd.
Dhanbad, Jharkhand, reported in 2015 (4) SCC. The relevant paragraph29 whereof, is, extracted hereinafter: ::: Downloaded on - 29/09/2019 02:54:46 :::HCHP -3- "it can safely be noted that merely because the workers in both the references were working in one project by itself was not enough to give them any .
right to claim parity with the claim of others. So long as the parity was not proved on all the relevant issues arising in the case, no worker whether individually or collectively was entitled to claim the relief only on the basis of similarity in the status qua the employer."
3. A perusal of the herein above extracted relevant paragraph, (a) visibly underscors, qua, the requisite parity being claimable, only upon the espoused parity being proven, to be completely working, on, all parameters/ issues, arising in the lis, at hand, (b) and, it being unclaimable, either individually or collectively, only, on the fulcrum of similarity, in the status, qua, the employer/ employment, (c) and, bearing in mind, the, afore trite expostulations of law, borne in the apposite herein above extracted paragraph, of, the verdict, rendered, by the Apex Court, (d) thereupon the mere factum of similarity of designation, of the petitioners herein, visavis, designation of employees, appointed, under, the SSA Scheme, ::: Downloaded on - 29/09/2019 02:54:46 :::HCHP -4- would not work, visavis, the petitioners, unless, all the afore apt expostulated connectivity(ies), (e) appertaining to all, .
relevant parameters or issues, as, arise in the instant lis, are, also proven, to be holding visible similarities, with, all those employees, hence holding, a, similar thereto designation, and, who, are, appointed under the SSA Scheme.
4. For determining whether the afore requisite echoings hence appertaining, visavis, all, the, afore issues, and, parameters, and, also qua therethrough(s) hence, also, parity existing, interse the petitioners, and, the employees appointed, under, the SSA Scheme, (a) and, obviously when the afore requisite determinants, are, borne in the terms, and, conditions of the appointment, of, employees, under, the afore scheme(s), (b) and, in the quantum of volume of work, performed by the petitioners, and, by the other purportedly similarly situate, with them, employees, as, appointed under the SSA Scheme, (c) and rather with averments, standing borne, in the reply made, on, affidavit, and, as furnished by the contesting respondents, and, their hence making, visible ::: Downloaded on - 29/09/2019 02:54:46 :::HCHP -5- displays, qua, the petitioners, being engaged, under, guidelines, borne in a specific policy, formulated, by the Government of .
India, (d) and, all the admissible remunerations being also governed hence therethrough, and, with also averments being borne, qua all the petitioners, through, a, contract executed interse them, with, the department concerned, hence accepting all the terms and conditions, embodied, in the requisite policy, inclusive, of, admissible remunerations, visavis, them, (e) rather, thereupon, theirs being estopped to espouse, qua, theirs being entitled, to, a higher quantum of salary, visavis, the, relevant contractually agreed salary, by them, (f) also, the predominant factum espoused in the afore affidavit(s), sworn by the authorized officers, of, the respondents, is, qua, the, petitioners managing the accounts, only, of, a particular hostel, hence carrying, a, numerical strength of 15 girls, (g) whereas, AccountantscumClerks, appointed under the SSA Scheme, being, enjoined to render service, in, the entire district(s) concerned, and, also theirs' managing accounts, of, blocks also, (h) and, with all the afore averments, made, on ::: Downloaded on - 29/09/2019 02:54:46 :::HCHP -6- affidavit, sworn, are, not strived, to, be contested, by the petitioners, through, any rejoinder, furnished thereto, by .
them/, and, when hence they acquire vericity, (i) and, when all the afore echoings, carry unfoldment qua apparent contradistinctivity(ies), visavis, the nature(s) of engagement, interse, the, petitioners, and, the purportedly similar situate, employees, rather emerging, (ii) and, conspicuously, with the petitioners through executing a contract, hence accepting the remunerations, disbursable to them, as, borne in the requisite governing policy, (iii) and, also when there is gross contradistinctivity, visavis, the volume of work, performed by the petitioners, and, the AccountantscumClerks, employed, under the SSA Scheme, (iv) thereupon all the afore visible contradistinctivity(ies), interse, the, apt employment(s) under SSA Scheme, and, the petitioners herein, rather fails, to bring, to, the fullest satiation, hence, the, expostulation(s) of law, borne in the apposite herein, apt, above extracted paragraph, borne, in, the verdict, rendered by the Apex Court, (v) thereupon within the ambit of the afore expostulations of law, ::: Downloaded on - 29/09/2019 02:54:46 :::HCHP -7- the petitioners, are, not entitled to parity of pay, visavis, the AccountantscumClerks, as, appointed, under, the SSA .
Scheme.
5. In view of the above observation(s), there is no merit in the instant writ petition, and, it is dismissed accordingly. All pending applications, also stand disposed of.
30 August, 2019
th
(kck)
r to (Sureshwar Thakur)
Judge
::: Downloaded on - 29/09/2019 02:54:46 :::HCHP