Santosh Kumar Kurre vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2021 Latest Caselaw 3232 Chatt

                                               1




                                                                                    NAFR

                    HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

                                  WPS No. 3935 of 2017

     Santosh Kumar Kurre S/o Late Basant Lal Kurre, Aged About 37 Years R/o
     Near Old Mina Bazar, Nakvi Sahab House, Kududand, Ward No. 2, Police
     Station Civil Line, 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. Vikash A. Shrivastava, Panel Lawyer


                           Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy
                                    Order on Board
18/11/2021

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

was WPS 771/2017 which was disposed of by this Court on 15.02.2017

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 Ved