WPSS/4346/2018 of SANJAY KUMAR SHARMA Vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND on 21 December 2018

WPSS No.4346 of 2018

Hon’ble Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.

Mr. B.N. Maulekhi, Advocate for the petitioners.

Mrs. Seema Sah, Brief Holder for the State/respondents.

The petitioners claims that on the basis of due process of selection resorted by respondents, they have been earlier appointed on several occasions against the sanctioned and vacant posts available with the respondents and they had been working since then against their respective date of appointment though on contractual basis.

The contention of the petitioners is that the selection of various persons to the posts was on the basis of Government Order dated 25.02.2009, it was made after due process of selection, which was made on being considered by the Selection Committee constituted for the said purpose. Though the nature of appointment of the petitioners happens to be contractual appointment, but they have discharged their duties which were duties equivalent to duties as that of regular employee and they are otherwise eligible for the post for regular appointment, and they are also having the same qualification as required for by the regular appointment and hence after their appointment as made on 30.05.2009 and 23.10.2010 respectively, they have worked regularly for over eight years, hence, they claim for that they ought to be paid the regular minimum of pay scale/salary as paid to the regular employees who are working as ‘Sister’ with the respondents.

The grievance of the petitioners is that despite of repeated prayer made to the respondents by filing several representations though their services ever since 2002, had been continued to be extended from time to time, yet no decision has been taken on the representation, which shows that there happens to be an exigency of service in the department, but despite of it, the petitioners have not been adequately remunerated by the respondents looking to the quantum of services rendered by them.

Raising their claim for the payment of scale as admissible to the post of ‘Sister’, they contend that they have raised their claim by filing representation dated 02.11.2017 before respondent no.3, but the same is pending consideration and no decision has been taken yet on the same by the respondents.

The contention of the petitioners is that looking to the service condition of the petitioners, the length of service, their representation ought to have been recommended to the State Government to be considered for paying the equal salary to the petitioners or at least they ought to be paid minimum of pay scale/salary under principles of Articles 14 and 39(1)(d) of Constitution. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petition is being disposed of directing the respondent nos.2 and 3 to take an appropriate decision with regards to the payment of minimum pay scale/salary to the petitioners and the decision as directed to be taken on the representation of petitioners would be taken by the respondents positively within a period of six weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order.

Subject to the above observations, writ petition stands disposed of.

There would be no order as to costs.

(Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.)

21.12.2018

Pooja