Virendra Kumar Tembhare v. State Of Chhattisgarh
NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 1613 of 2021
1. Virendra Kumar Tembhare S/o Shri Hirdu Tembhare Aged About 39 Years R/o Q. No. D-04, Type D, Behind New Girls Hostel, GGV Campus, Koni Bilaspur Chhattisgarh
2. Samir Sharma S/o Dwarika Prasad Sharma Aged About 51 Years R/o A/15, Priyadarshini Nagar, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Higher Education, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Post And P. S. Mandir Hsasud, Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh
2. Guru Ghasidas Vishwavidyalaya Bilaspur A Central University Established By The Central Universities Act, 2009 Through Registrar Koni Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ----Respondents For Petitioner :
Shri Krishna Tandon, Adovcate.
For State :
Shri Rahul Jha, G.A.
For Respondent No.2 :
Shri Rishabh Bisen, Advocate.
Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order on Board 23/03/2021
1. The limited grievance of the petitioners in the present writ petition is for a direction to the respondent No. 2 to consider and decide the representation of the petitioners wherein they have sought for the pay parity in-respect-of salary paid to the different Data Entry Operators working under the respondent No. 2.
2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has enclosed Annexure P/1 and Annexure P/1-A drawing the attention of this Court to the Different pay-scale being granted to the two sets of Data Entry Operators and the petitioners are claiming salary on the basis of parity and on ground of 'equal pay for equal work'.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2 submits that perhaps the two categories of persons are holding different posts like the petitioners are holding the post of Data Entry Operator Grade-1 and the other persons with whom the petitioners are claiming parity is shown to be Data Entry Operator (DEO) and that perhaps could be the reason for different pay-scale for different posts.
4. Be that as it may, since the petitioners have made a detailed representation to the respondent No. 2 in this regard the respondent No. 2 is expected to take a decision in accordance with Rules and Regulations governing the field at the earliest preferably within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
5. The writ petition accordingly stands disposed of. Sd/- (P. Sam Koshy) Judge Jyotijha