SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2018 Supreme(J&K) 412

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

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioners:Mr. M.Y. Bhat, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. R. A. Khan, A.A.G.

JUDGMENT :

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











































































































































































































































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

gpt-4

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top