IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AT SRINAGAR
M.K. HANJURA, J.
Junaid Amin Wani and others - Petitioners
Versus
State of J&K and others - Respondents
SWP no.1265 of 2016, MP no.01 of 2016
Decided On : 16-07-2018
1. Board of Directors of the J&K State Power Development Corporation Limited, a Government of J&K Enterprise, in its 65th meeting, decided to advertise 75 posts of the Finance Assistants. Notification no.JKSPDCL/ADM/4342 dated 25th August 2012 was issued, inviting the applications from the permanent residents of Jammu and Kashmir State for contractual appointment, amongst others, to 75 posts of the Finance Assistants. It was made clear in the aforesaid advertisement notice that the contractual appointment would be for a period of two years, after which the appointees would be considered for regularisation subject to their satisfactory performance in accordance with the policy being formulated in this behalf by the respondent corporation. The qualification prescribed for the post of Finance Assistant was MBA (Finance)/MFC/M.Sc.(Finance)/M. Com having passed from a Government recognised Institute with at least 60% marks. The selection process, set in motion, culminated in the appointment of the Finance Assistants, including the present petitioners. For regularising the contractual appointment on completion of two years, a committee was constituted vide Order no.PDC/42 of 2016 dated 20th February 2016 to examine the various aspects of the process of regularisation of the Finance Assistants. The Committee recommended the regularisation of 42 Finance Assistants. This was followed by issuance of Order no.PDC/CJ/77 of 2016 dated 26th March 2016, regularising as many as 42 Finance Assistants in the pay scale of 5200-20200 with Grade Pay of 2400.
2. The present petitioners, 41 in number, are aggrieved of their placement in the Grade Pay of Rs.2400/-as according to them they are entitled to be given the Grade Pay of Rs.4800/-as is being granted to the similarly situated employees of the respondent corporation and the State Government and other corporations/undertakings. The petitioners seek:
(a) Writ of certiorari, quashing Order no.PDC/CJ/77 of 2016 dated 26th March 2016 to the extent of placement of the petitioners in the Pay Scale of 5200-20200 with Grade Pay of Rs.2400.00;
(b) Writ of mandamus, commanding the respondents to place the petitioners in the Pay Scale of 9300-34800 with Grade Pay of Rs.4800/-as is being granted to other similarly situated employees of the respondent corporation and State Government and other corporations/undertakings;
(c) Writ of mandamus, commanding the respondents to calculate the release the arrears of the salary and emoluments to the rate of 9300-34800 with Grade Pay of Rs.4800/-and also clear arrears of emoluments accordingly for the first two years of contractual service;
(d) Writ of mandamus, commanding the respondents to implement the Manpower Policy issued vide Order no.169-JKSPDC of 2013 dated 14th November 2013 in letter and spirit and designate the petitioners as Managers and grant them all consequential benefits retrospectively.
3. Reply has been filed by respondent no.2. He insists that the respondent corporation is a government owned corporation. The respondent corporation has as on date no recruitment rules and the bylaws are operational in the corporation. The posts are advertised purely in the interest of the respondent corporation so as to ensure that the work does not suffer. The respondent no.2 admits that the petitioners were regularised with the specific scale of pay, which was/is applicable as per the decision of the respondent corporation, but at the same time the petitioners cannot be allowed to approbate and reprobate inasmuch as on the one hand they have accepted their regularisation and on the other hand they challenge the same to the extent of their placement in the pay scale mentioned in the regularisation order. It is contended that the appointment of the petitioners and their regularisation has been made as per the decision of the management of the respondent corporation and that the respondent corporation is a separate corporation with the management and accordingly t
Associate Banks Officers’ Association v. SBI
Central Inland Water Transport Corporation Limited and Another Vs. Brojo Nath Ganguly and Another
Deepak Kumar Biswas v. Director of Public Instructions
Dwarka Prasad Agarwal (D) by LRs. and another v. B.D. Agarwal and others.
Executive Committee of Vaish Degree College, Shamli v. Lakshmi Narain
Federation of All India Customs and Central Excise Stenographers (Recognized) v. Union of India
Government of W.B. v. Tarun K. Roy
Grih Kalyan Kendra Workers’ Union v. Union of India
Harbans Lal v. State of Himachal Pradesh
Hukum Chand Gupta v. Director General, Indian Council of Agricultural Research
Islamic Academy of Education and Another v. State of Karnataka and Others.
Jiby P. Chacko v. Mediciti School of Nursing, Ghanpur, Ranga Reddy District and Anr.
Mewa Ram Kanojia v. All India Institute of Medical Sciences
National Aluminum Company Limited v. Ananta Kishore Rout
Official Liquidator v. Dayanand
Orissa University of Agriculture & Technology v. Manoj K. Mohanty
Poplar Housing and Regeneration Community Association Ltd. v. Donoghue.
Pradeep Kumar Biswas v. Indian Institute of Chemical Biology
Rai Sahib Ram Jawaya Kapur and others v. The State of Punjab
Rajasthan Electricity Board v. Mohan Lal.
Ramana D. Shetty v. International Airport Authority.
Randhir Singh v. Union of India & Ors.
Randhir Singh v. Union of India
SC Chandra vs. State of Jharkhand
Sri Sankari Prasad Singh Deo v. Union of India and State of Bihar, (1952) SCR 89
State Bank of India v. M.R. Ganesh Babu
State of Haryana v. Chanan Mal
State of Haryana v. Charanjit Singh
State of Haryana v. Haryana Civil Secretariat Personal Staff Association
State of Maharashtra v. Pramod Bhartiya.
State of Punjab v. Jagjit Singh
State of Punjab v. Surjit Singh
State of Punjab v. The Senior Vocational Staff Masters Association
State of U.P. v. J.P. Chaurasia
State of U.P. v. Ministerial Karamchari Sangh
State of West Bengal v. West Bengal Minimum Wages Inspectors Association
Steel Authority of India Limited v. Dibyendu Bhattacharya
Sukhdev Singh and others v. Bhagatram Sardar Singh Raghuvanshi and another
T.M.A. Pai Foundation and Others v. State of Karnataka and Others
Union of India v. Pradip Kumar Dev
Union Territory Administration Chandigarh v. Manju Mathur
UP State Cooperative Land Development Bank Ltd. v. Chandra Bhan Dubey & Ors.
gpt-4
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.