Ramji Sahu v. South Eastern Coalfields Limited

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 587 of 2021 Ramji Sahu S/o Late Ramlagan Sahu Aged About 60 Years Retired From The Post Of Survey Manager, South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Hasdeo Area, R/o Village Sontarai, Near Gyansthali, School, Post Devgarh, Tahsil Sitapur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. South Eastern Coalfields Limited Through Chairman Cum Managing Director, Head Quarter Seepat Road, Post Box No. 60, Bilaspur District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh

2. Director (Personnal) South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Head Office, Seepat Road, Post Box No. 60, Bilaspur District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh

3. General Manager (Ee) South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Head Office, Seepat Road, Post Box No. 60, Bilaspur District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh

4. Regional Personnel Manager South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Hasdeo Area, Secl, Post Jhagrakhand, Colliery, District Koriya Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Petitioner :

Mr. C. Jayant K. Rao, Advocate For SECL :

Mr. K. K. Shrivastava, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order on Board 22/02/2021 1.

The grievance of the petitioner in the present writ petition seems to be the pay anomaly.

2.

According to the petitioner he has retired from service on 31.05.2020 and before his retirement he came to know that some of his juniors who were promoted as T&S Grade - A much subsequent to the petitioner are withdrawing the salary more than the petitioner

and this fact was brought to the notice of the authorities and where his application/representation is still pending. 3.

Learned counsel appearing for the respondent however submits that a situation so arose because of the implementation of the two revision of pay which in the respondent establishment governed under the provisions of the National Coal Wage Agreement (NCWA) issued from time to time. The petitioner herein got promoted when the NCWA-3 was in force and persons with whom the petitioner is claiming parity were those persons who were promoted when the NCWA-4 was in force and this has led to the difference of pay scale though, the persons who were working on the same cadre. Counsel for the respondents however submits that since the representation of the petitioner is pending consideration before the authorities, the same shall be decided in accordance with law at the earliest. 4.

Given the said submissions by the counsel for the parties, the writ petition at this juncture stands disposed of directing the respondent no.2 & 3 to take appropriate decision at the earliest preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

5.

With the above observations, this writ petition stands finally disposed of.

Sd/- (P. Sam Koshy) Judge Rohit