SWP/97/2003 of GIAN SINGH Vs STATE TH.P.H.E DEPTT. AND ORS on 29 December 2017

1. Petitioner, after working as daily wager in respondent department, was brought on regular establishment against the post of Helper with effect from 01.04.1994 in terms of Government Order No.572-PW of 1994 dated 25.03.1994. He claims that on the edifice of he having to his credit Diploma from Industrial Training Institute, he is entitled to the benefit of SRO 87 of 1968 read with SRO 149 of 1973. His grievance is that while respondents have granted benefit in terms of aforesaid SROs to similarly circumstanced colleagues, he has been ignored. He, on the strength of grounds set out in the petition, seeks a direction to respondents to extend benefit of aforementioned SROs on the same lines as has been extended to similarly circumstanced colleagues. brought on regular establishment against the post of Helper with effect from 01.04.1994 in terms of Government Order No.572-PW of 1994 dated 25.03.1994. He claims that on the edifice of he having to his credit Diploma from Industrial Training Institute, he is entitled to the benefit of SRO 87 of 1968 read with SRO 149 of 1973. His grievance is that while respondents have granted benefit in terms of aforesaid SROs to similarly circumstanced colleagues, he has been ignored. He, on the strength of grounds set out in the petition, seeks a direction to respondents to extend benefit of aforementioned SROs on the same lines as has been extended to similarly circumstanced colleagues.

2. Respondents have filed objections and have admitted that petitioner was engaged as daily wager in 1986 and converted into regular establishment as Helper with effect from 01.04.1994 in terms of Government Order engaged as daily wager in 1986 and converted into regular establishment as Helper with effect from 01.04.1994 in terms of Government Order No.572-PW of 1994 dated 25.03.1994 under endorsement No. PHEJ/GE/20399-42 dated 24.12.1994. However, they contend that petitioner’s case is not covered under SRO 87 of 1986 and SRO 149 of 1973 and Government Instruction dated 15.11.1990. They do not deny the fact qua SWP No.421-A/92 having been decided on 12.02.1998, SWP No.367 of 1988 decided on 18.11.1996 and SWP No.742 of 1998 decided on 25.05.1999. It is added that SRO 87 of 1968 and SRO 149 of 1973 have since been ceased and replaced by SRO 380 of 1989 with effect from 19.09.1989.

3. Petitioner has filed rejoinder, contending therein that respondent No.2 issued Order No.PHEJ/GF/10579-10608 dated 31.01.2004, granting benefits of SRO 87 of 1968 and SRO 149 of 1973 to a number of employees including petitioner from 1[st] January, 2004. Thus, it is averred that SRO 380 of 1989 does not speak anything which debars petitioner from getting the benefit of SRO 87 of 1968 and SRO 149 of 1973. It is also pleaded that respondents have given benefits of aforesaid SROs to similarly situated employees, viz. Mr. Ajay Sharma and Naresh Kumar Sharma, from the date of their regularization. issued Order No.PHEJ/GF/10579-10608 dated 31.01.2004, granting benefits of SRO 87 of 1968 and SRO 149 of 1973 to a number of employees including petitioner from 1[st] January, 2004. Thus, it is averred that SRO 380 of 1989 does not speak anything which debars petitioner from getting the benefit of SRO 87 of 1968 and SRO 149 of 1973. It is also pleaded that respondents have given benefits of aforesaid SROs to similarly situated employees, viz. Mr. Ajay Sharma and Naresh Kumar Sharma, from the date of their regularization.

4. Learned counsel for petitioner, to buttress the case set up by petitioner in writ petition on hand, states that petitioner is entitled to the benefit from the date of his regularization as he possesses ITI Diploma Certificate of Motor Mechanic at the time of regularization. He further argues that benefit of higher grade was dependent upon the possessing of ITI certificate in any of the Trade(s). He contends that respondents have accorded benefit to many daily wagers by placing them in the higher-grade right from the date they were regularized. He refers to the copies of orders forming Annexures to writ petition. The authenticity of these documents has not been denied by respondents in their reply. writ petition on hand, states that petitioner is entitled to the benefit from the date of his regularization as he possesses ITI Diploma Certificate of Motor Mechanic at the time of regularization. He further argues that benefit of higher grade was dependent upon the possessing of ITI certificate in any of the Trade(s). He contends that respondents have accorded benefit to many daily wagers by placing them in the higher-grade right from the date they were regularized. He refers to the copies of orders forming Annexures to writ petition. The authenticity of these documents has not been denied by respondents in their reply.

5. In support of his arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance on a judgment passed by this Court in SWP No.1775/2006 titled Ram Lal v. State and another and judgment dated 06.08.2014 passed by Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in LPASW No.10/2014 titled State and another v. Ram Lal. placed reliance on a judgment passed by this Court in SWP No.1775/2006 titled Ram Lal v. State and another and judgment dated 06.08.2014 passed by Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in LPASW No.10/2014 titled State and another v. Ram Lal.

6. Mr. Charak, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner would be satisfied if the respondents are directed to accord consideration to the case of the petitioner for giving him the benefit of higher pay scale in terms of SRO 87 of 1968 and SRO 149 of 1973 from the date he was regularized on the analogy of similarly circumstanced persons, to which learned counsel for respondents has no objection except his assertion that petitioner’s case would be strictly considered under rules. would be satisfied if the respondents are directed to accord consideration to the case of the petitioner for giving him the benefit of higher pay scale in terms of SRO 87 of 1968 and SRO 149 of 1973 from the date he was regularized on the analogy of similarly circumstanced persons, to which learned counsel for respondents has no objection except his assertion that petitioner’s case would be strictly considered under rules.

7. So viewed, this petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner for according him benefit of SRO 87 of 1968 and SRO 149 of 1973 on the same lines as has been accorded to similarly circumstanced persons, provided the petitioner is also similarly situated. Let a decision in the matter be taken by the respondents within eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. to consider the claim of the petitioner for according him benefit of SRO 87 of 1968 and SRO 149 of 1973 on the same lines as has been accorded to similarly circumstanced persons, provided the petitioner is also similarly situated. Let a decision in the matter be taken by the respondents within eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

8. Disposed of along with connected MP(s).

Jammu29.12.2017 ‘Madan’

(Tashi Rabstan)

Judge