Uttarakhand High Court
Usha Joshi & Others ... vs State Of Uttarakhand & Others on 5 January, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Writ Petition No.1858 (S/S) of 2019
Usha Joshi & others ...........Petitioners
Versus
State of Uttarakhand & others .........Respondents
with
Writ Petition No.1857 (S/S) of 2018
Mahavir Singh Rana & others ...........Petitioners
Versus
Union of India & others .........Respondents
Mr. B.S. Negi, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. T.S. Bisht, Deputy Advocate General for the State of Uttarakahnd.
Hon'ble Lok Pal Singh, J.
Petitioners have filed these writ petitions
seeking following reliefs:-
"(i) Issue a writ of certiorari quashing the
impugned order dated 16.03.2019 passed by
respondent no.4 (contained as Annexure No.1 to this
writ petition).
(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the
nature of mandamus directing the respondents to
provide the salaries/honorarium to the petitioners as
Rs.30,000/- in place of Rs.13,892/- for the post of
District Community Moblizer (DCM), Rs.15,000/- in
place of Rs.10,419/- for the post of Block Community
Moblizer (BCM/Block Coordinator) and Rs.15,000/-
in place of Rs.8,104/- for the post of Data Entry
Operator (DEO) as per the guideline issued by the
Central Government.
(iii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the
nature of mandamus directing the respondents to
pay the salary/honorarium of June to August, 2018
to the petitioners."
2. Factual matrix of the present case is that the
petitioners were, respectively, appointed on the post of
District Community Moblizer, Block Community Moblizer
& Data Entry Operator and they are getting the
honorarium but not commensurate to the Central
Government Policy properly, then they constrained to file
WPSS No.4222 of 2018. The Coordinate Bench of this
Court vide its judgment and order dated 14.12.2018
pleased to dispose of the writ petition with the directions
to the respondents to consider and take decision on the
representation of the petitioners dated 18.09.2018 and if
necessary the petitioners would also be heard, decision
thus directed to be taken would be taken by the said
respondents within a period of six weeks from the date of
the order.
3. Pursuant to the order dated 14.12.2018,
respondents have taken a decision on the representation
of the petitioners and by impugned order dated
16.03.2019, the representation of the petitioners has
been decided. It is averred that the representation has
been rejected on the ground that the petitioners have
entered into a contract with the respondents in the year
2018. It is further stated that since the petitioners are
working pursuant to the agreement executed between the
petitioners and the department, the petitioners have no
right to make some other demand. It is stated that the
Central Government issued a guideline for payment of
enhancement/ honorarium but the same is not being
paid to the petitioners. It is further stated that the
respondents are exploiting the petitioners by not giving
the appropriate remuneration to them.
4. The petitioners have contended that the
respondents have not taken into consideration the
guidelines issued by the Central Government in the year
2013-14. The respondent no.4 in the counter affidavit
has stated that the representation submitted by the
petitioners have been decided in accordance with law.
Since the petitioners were deployed at a consolidated
remuneration, therefore, they cannot claim much
honorarium from the departments. It is stated that the
guidelines issued by the Central Government in the year
2013-14 are directory in nature which cannot be
considered as a rule. The petitioners have filed the
rejoinder affidavit denied the averments made in the
counter affidavit.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and
perused the material available on record.
6. A perusal of the guidelines issued by the
Central Government in the year 2013-14 would depict
that the honorarium for the post of District Community
Moblizer would be Rs.30,000/-, Block Community
Moblizer/Block Coordinator would be Rs.15,000/-, and
Data Entry Operator would be Rs.15,000/-. It is true
that the guidelines issued by the Central Government are
directory in nature but no reason has been assigned by
the respondents that the respondents are not capacitated
to follow the guidelines issued by the Central
Government. In case, the respondents have financial
capacity to pay the honorarium as per the guidelines
issued by the Central Government. The respondent no.4
should have made efforts in this regard but no where in
the impugned order is said that the State Government is
not capable to pay the honorarium for the post of District
Community Moblizer, Block Community Moblizer/Block
Coordinator and Data Entry Operator as per the
guidelines issued by the Central Government,
7. This Court is of the firm view that the
impugned order is unreasoned and non speaking and is
liable to be quashed and the same is hereby quashed.
8. Accordingly, the present writ petitions are
disposed of with further direction to the respondent no.4
to consider the case of the petitioners de novo for the
grant of honorarium to them in view of the guidelines
issued by the Central Government in the year 2013-14.
9. All pending applications, if any, stand disposed
of accordingly.
(Lok Pal Singh, J.)
05.01.2021
Ravi
