Ghanshyam Prasad vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2021 Latest Caselaw 287 Chatt

                                        1

                                                                          NAFR
             HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR


                      Writ Petition (S) No. 1589 of 2018


      Ghanshyam Prasad S/o Late Bhagau Ram, Aged About 42 Years, R/o
      Village Nigarband, Post Takhatpur, Tahsil & Police Station Takhatpur,
      District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

                                                                   ---- Petitioner

                                    Versus

   1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Public Works
      Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh

   2. Engineer In Chief, Public Works Department, Sirpur Bhawan, Sihava
      Road, Civil Lines, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh

   3. Superintending Engineer, Public Works Department, Bilaspur Circle,
      Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

   4. Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, Bilaspur Division,
      District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
                                                              ---- Respondents

For Petitioner           :     Mr. S. P. Kale, Advocate
For State                :     Mr. Jitendra Pali, Dy. Advocate General


                    Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy
                               Order On Board
14.06.2021

   1. The present is a second round of litigation.        The earlier round of

litigation was WPS 1374/2017 which was disposed of by this Court on

21.03.2017 in terms of an order passed in WPS No. 4599/2016 dated

24.01.2017.

2. The relief sought in the first round of litigation was for grant of regular

pay scale to the petitioner at par with the regular employees of the

State Govt. from the date of the petitioner being appointed on

compassionate basis. According to the petitioner, he had filed the writ

petition claiming for equal pay for equal work based upon the judgment

of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab & another Vs.

Jagjit Singh and others reported in 2017 (1) SCC 148.

3. Though this Court had disposed of the petition in respect of the claim

for equal pay for equal work, the authorities concerned seem to have

decided the claim of the petitioner considering the same to be a claim

for regularization and have rejected the claim of the petitioner vide

Annexure P-1 whereas the petitioner has never claimed for

regularization. The order passed by the authorities concerned vide

Annexure P-1 seems to be in an entirely different context unrelated to

the claim raised by the petitioner.

4. Given the said facts, this Court is of the opinion that the impugned

order Annexure P-1 would not be sustainable and the same deserves

to be and is accordingly set aside. The matter stands remitted back to

the respondents i.e. the office of the respondents 2 to 4 to take a fresh

decision on the claim of the petitioner. It is ordered that the

respondents while deciding the claim of the petitioner shall also take

into consideration the observations of the Supreme Court in the case of

Jagjit Singh (supra). Let an appropriate decision be taken at the

earliest preferably within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of

copy of this order.

5. Counsel for the petitioner submits that similar benefits have been

extended to similarly placed persons in the department. The authority

concerned may also keep that in mind while deciding the claim of the

petitioner.

6. The writ petition accordingly stands disposed of.

Sd/-

P. Sam Koshy Judge Khatai