Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Rajani Dubey, J.
Binnu Ram, S/o Late Somen Ram - Petitioner
Vs.
State of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary, Department of Public Works, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, Chhattisgarh - Respondent
WPS No. 6417 of 2018, WPS No. 957 of 2019
Decided On : 01-04-2024
Compassionate Appointment - Regular Pay Scale - Circulars dated 27.2.2007, 6.7.2007, 12.2.2008 - The court found that the impugned orders rejecting the claim of the petitioners for regular pay scale were not sustainable in law and set them aside. The respondent authorities were directed to grant regular pay scale to the petitioners as per circular dated 12.2.2008 from the initial date of their appointment. This exercise be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of copy of this order.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners were appointed on compassionate ground against the sanctioned vacant post and were getting the salary of daily wage employees. They sought regular pay scale as per circulars issued by the State Government, but their representations were rejected. They filed writ petitions challenging the rejection.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the impugned orders rejecting the claim of the petitioners for regular pay scale were not sustainable in law and set them aside. The respondent authorities were directed to grant regular pay scale to the petitioners as per circular dated 12.2.2008 from the initial date of their appointment.
Issues: The main issue was the denial of regular pay scale to the petitioners despite their appointment on compassionate ground against the sanctioned vacant post and the non-compliance with circulars issued by the State Government.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the impugned orders were not sustainable in law as the respondent authorities did not consider the circular dated 12.2.2008 and rejected the representations of the petitioners on the basis of a different circular. The court directed the respondent authorities to grant regular pay scale to the petitioners as per circular dated 12.2.2008 from the initial date of their appointment.
Final Decision: The impugned orders were set aside, and the respondent authorities were directed to grant regular pay scale to the petitioners as per circular dated 12.2.2008 from the initial date of their appointment.
ORDER :
Since the issue involved in both these petitions is same, they are heard analogously and are being decided by this common order.
2. In these petitions, the petitioners Binnu Ram and Mukesh Kumar are challenging the order dated 9.4.2018 (Annexure P/8) and the order dated 22.10.2018 (Annexure P/8 colly) whereby their representations for grant of regular pay scale have been rejected.
3. Brief facts of the case, as mentioned in the writ petitions, are that the petitioners were appointed on the post of permanent Gangman Labour (Daily Wager) on compassionate ground against the sanctioned vacant post as per the set up and they are getting the salary of daily wage employee. However, as per the circulars dated 27.2.2007, 6.7.2007 and 12.2.2008 (Annexure P/2) issued by the State Government if any appointment is made on compassionate ground, then it would be under the contingency fund and initial salary is to be paid to such employee on regular pay scale along with dearness allowance, for a period of three years and thereafter regular pay scale shall be paid. But the petitioners are not being paid accordingly whereas the persons who were appointed on compassionate ground are getting salary of regular pay scale and the persons who were appointed as daily wagers, they have also been regularized and now they are getting salary of regular pay scale. Though the petitioners made representations from time to time before the concerned authorities for grant of regular pay scale but the same were not considered. Hence they filed writ petitions before this Court, upon which this Court directed the respondents to decide the representations of the petitioner on the basis of circular dated 12.2.2008 but the same were rejected by the impugned orders. Hence these petitions for the following reliefs:
WPS No.6417/2018
10.1(a) That, Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash/set aside the letter/order dated 09.04.2018 (Annexure P/8) issued by respondent no.2.
10.2 That, this Hon’ble court may kindly be pleased to direct the Respondents to consider the case of petitioner for regularization in light of judgment passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of Karnataka Vs. Umadevi and circular dated 05/03/2008 issued by State Govt.
10.3 That, Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the Respondents to consider the case of petitioner and grant regular pay scale under contingency fund as per circulars issued by State Govt.
10.4 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents not to fill up the post against which the petitioner is working till the consideration the case of the petitioner.
10.5 Any other relief which Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and cost of the petition.”
WPS No.957/2019
10.1 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call the entire records relating to the case of the petitioner.
10.1(a) That, Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash/set aside the letter/order dated 22.10.2018 issued by respondent no.2.
10.2 That, this Hon’ble court may kindly be pleased to direct the Respondents to consider the case of petitioner for regularization in light of judgment passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of Karnataka Vs. Umadevi and circular dated 05/03/2008 issued by State Govt.
10.3 That, Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the Respondents to consider the case of petitioner and grant regular pay scale under contingency fund as per circulars issued by State Govt from the date on which the similar situated employees are getting it.
10.4 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents not to fill up the post against which the petitioner is working till the consideration the case of the petitioner.
10.5 Any other relief which Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the c
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the respondent authorities must comply with the relevant circulars issued by the State Government in granting regular pay scale to employees a....
The legal principle established in the judgment is that the policy prevailing at the time of appointment governs the entitlement to pay scale, and the court may consider similar treatment given by th....
It is also not in dispute that after lifting of the ban, the District Compassionate Committee recommended the appellant's appointment as teacher on compassionate ground and he was appointed against t....
Dependent of medically incapacitated daily-wager entitled to daily-wage compassionate appointment only per policy Clause 2(b); no retrospective regularization, post-change after acceptance, or parity....
Regularization of service is the exclusive domain of the employer, and temporary and casual employees cannot seek regularization. Government orders come into effect from the date of issuance unless s....
Retrospective regularisation of service is not legally tenable unless the employee is part of the regular cadre, adhering to constitutional and statutory rules.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
