Chetan Kumar Sinha v. C.G. State Of Power Distribution Comp. Ltd.

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPS No. 2583 of 2018

1. Chetan Kumar Sinha S/o Vijay Kumar Sinha Aged About 24 Years R/o Village And Post Gariyaband Tahsil And P.S. Gariyaband, District Gariyaband Chhattisgarh.

2. Pram Kumar Sahu S/o Tijau Ram Sahu Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Kharra, Post Darra, Tahsil And P.S. Kurud, District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh.

3. Net Ram Sahu S/o Kartik Ram Sahu, Aged About 36 Years R/o Village Pond, Post Panduka Tahsil And P.S. Panduka District Gariyaband Chhattisgarh.

---- Petitioners

Versus

1. C.G. State Of Power Distribution Comp. Ltd. Through Managing Director, Dangniya, Raipur Chhattisgarh.

2. Executive Director (O And M) CSPDCL, Raipur Chhattisgarh.

3. Aashu Chandrawanshi (Contactor) Rohnipuram, Raipura, Mahadevghat Road, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For the Petitioners :

Shri KPS Gandhi, Advocate For the Resp. No. 1 & 2 :

Shri Raja Sharma, Advocate ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Shri Justice Sharad Kumar Gupta Order On Board /07/2018

1. Heard counsel for the parties.

2. The petitioners by way of this petition seeks a direction to the respondents for paying salary at par with the regular employees in the department on the basis of "Equal Pay For Equal Work". The petitioners rely upon the judgment of Supreme Court in case State of Punjab & Jagjit Singh and Others, 2017(1) SCC 148.

3. However, a perusal of record shows that the petitioners till date have

not made any representation to the employer for redressal of their grievances. Without representation being made to the employer for redressal of grievance, this petition at this juncture would be premature and the same is declined from being entertained. However, the petitioners are at liberty to approach the respondents by making a detailed representation in the light of judgment of Supreme Court in case of State of Punjab Vs. Jagjit Singh (Supra). In case such a representation is made, it is expected then the employer shall look into the matter and pass appropriate orders in accordance with rules. The petitioners are at liberty to re-agitate, if situation so warrants.

4. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition stands finally disposed of. No order asto costs.

Sd/- (Sharad Kumar Gupta) Judge Kamde