Advocates:
['MANOJ PAREEK', 'SANDEEP SAXENA', '', 'AJAY RASTOGI']

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR.

O R D E R

S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.4711/2002.

: :

Subhash Chandra Soni & Ors.

Vs.

Jaipur Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. & Anr.

: :

Date of Order 2.3.2009

HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ

Mr. Manoj Pareek for the petitioner.

Mr.Sandeep Saxena with Ankur Srivastava for the

respondents.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2.

This writ petition has been filed by as many as

eleven employees working with respondent-Jaipur Vidhyut

Vitran Nigam Ltd., who were originally appointed with the

Rajasthan State Electricity Board, Jaipur, consequent upon

their regular selection by the order of Chief Engineer (M&P)

dated 2.3.1995. Initially, they were appointed on

consolidated salary of Rs.1000/- for the first year and

Rs.1250/- for the second year and Rs.1500/- for the third

year. However, they were granted regular pay scale vide

order dated 29.4.1998. Petitioners are aggrieved by non-

2

grant of Scale No.3 and it is contended that petitioners are

yet being paid Scale No.2 whereas respondents have granted

Scale No.3 to large number of Helpers, who hold lower post

then post held by the petitioners.

3.

Shri Manoj Pareek, learned counsel for the

petitioners has invited attention of the Court towards the

judgment of Supreme Court dated 23.10.1989, which is

reproduced in para 4 of the writ petition and submitted that

Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgment directed

respondents to grant scale No.3 to all such similarly situated

persons who holds qualification of ITI/NAC and it was

directed that benefits of the judgment be made available to

others who are not before the Court if they have same

qualification. Learned counsel also cited the order dated

17.10.1997 issued by the respondents by which it was

directed that on recommendation of Committee 78 persons

enumerated therein, who were holding the post of Helper

Grade-II and completed more than three years of satisfactory

service would be paid salary in pay scale No.3 with

immediate effect. It was, therefore, submitted that the

respondents have discriminated against the petitioners by

paying them lessor salary than the salary, which was being

3

paid to the persons holding lower post. Learned counsel

relied on judgment of this Court in Sohan Singh Vs. Judge,

Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court & Ors. : 2007 (1) CDR,

813 and argued that contention of the respondents that

Helpers possessing the qualification of ITI certificate would

be paid Scale No.2 was based on Clause 22 of Singh Sancheti

Award.

4.

Shri Sandeep Saxena, learned counsel for the

respondents opposed the writ petition and submitted that

since the appointment of the petitioner was made on

2.3.1995, judgment of Supreme Court delivered on

23.10.1989 could not be applied to their case. The

respondents directed only for such Helpers for grant of Scale

No.3, who possess the qualification of ITI, obviously for

those who were in service with the respondents on the date

of passing of the said order dated 23.10.1989. Learned

counsel submitted that claim of petitioners to demand Scale

No.3 on the strength of qualification of ITI/NAC certificate

upon completion of two years of service is founded on Clause

22 of Singh Sancheti Award, whereas the fact is that by

mistake and misinterpretation of the award some of the

persons falling under second category i.e. non ITI certificate

4

holders doing NAC were allowed pay scale No.3. During

apprenticeship and that too without passing of prescribed

test such benefits could not be granted. In any case Singh

Sancheti Award stands terminated vide notice dated

29.6.1985 and it cannot, therefore, be made basis for

granting desire relief to the petitioner. It was argued that

there was no case for discrimination because the petitione