High Court Of ChhattisgarhWPS/4000/2016disposed off

Santosh Kumar Khandekar v. State Of Chhattisgarh

2016-08-23Hon'Ble Shri Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava2 pages

-1NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPS No. 4000 of 2016 Santosh Kumar Khandekar S/o Shri Mukunda, Aged About 40 Years Working As Part Time Sweeper, Government Meddle, School Jali, Block Kota, P.S. Ratanpur, Tahsil Kota, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of School Education Development, Mantralay, Mahanadi Bhwan Police Stiaton Mandir Hasaud, New Raipur Chhattisgarh

2. Director, Lok Sikshan Sanchanalaya, Indrawati Bhawan, New Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh

3. Collector, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh

4. District Education Officer, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh

5. Block Education Officer, Kota, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh

6. Labour Officer, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Petitioner :

Shri Anshul R. Shrivastava, Advocate For Respondent-State :

Shri Chandresh Shrivastava, Panel Lawyer S.B.:Hon'ble Shri Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Order On Board 23/08/2016 Heard.

2. The petitioner, who was appointed as Part Time Sweeper in the year 2011 at the then existing collector rate, has filed this petition for a direction that he is entitled for grant of minimum wages as per minimum wage fixed vide letter dated 11.4.2016

-2- (Annexure P-5).

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a representation has also been moved by the petitioner for grant of minimum wages, however, the same is not being extended to the petitioner.

4. The order of appointment of the petitioner show that he was appointed as Part Time Sweeper in the year 2011 on wages applicable in case of Part Time Sweeper, on collector rates. Therefore, if the collector wages have been revised, the case of the petitioner is also required to be considered for grant of appropriate and existing minimum wages prescribed by the Collector. Accordingly, the petitioner's case should also be considered and appropriate orders in his case should be passed by the respondent No.4 for grant of appropriate wages, according to current rate of wages applicable to the category of employment, in which the petitioner is employed.

5. With the aforesaid observations, the petition is finally disposed off. Sd/- (Manindra Mohan Shrivastava) Judge Praveen