Ashok Kumar Chouhan v. State Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPS No.4013 of 2017 • Ashok Kumar Chouhan S/o Nawal Ram Chouhan Aged About 35 Years Working As Sweeper, Govt. High School, Chiknipani, Block- Farsabahar, District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh.

---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary , School Education Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, New Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

2. The Director, Public Instructions, Directorate, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

3. The Collector Jashpur, District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh.

4. The District Education Officer, Jashpur, District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh.

5. The Block Education Officer, Farsabahar, District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondents For Petitioner :

Shri Harish Khuntiya, Advocate For Respondent/State :

Shri Manish Nigam,PL Hon'ble Shri Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Order On Board 24/08/2017 Heard.

2.

The petitioners were appointed as Part Time Sweeper on a fixed salary of Rs.1,900/-, the then existing collector rate of wages. The petitioners have approached this Court with a grievance that the rates of minimum wages have been revised but even then, the petitioners are being continued on exploitative rates of wages which are no longer in existence. The petitioners pray for a direction that minimum wages as per minimum wage fixed vide latest revised

rate in the letter dated 02/11/2010 be awarded to the petitioners. 3.

It is also submitted that representation has also been moved by the petitioner for grant of wages, however, the same has not been considered favourably. Therefore, this petition has been filed. 4.

The order of appointment of the petitioners show that they were appointed as Part Time Sweepers in the year 2007 on wages applicable to Part Time Sweepers on collector rates as applicable on their respective date of appointment. However, these rates of wages for such kind of employees have been revised from time to time.

5.

There is no reason, why revised rate of wages should not been extended to the petitioners who are working as Part Time Sweeper. In these circumstances, when the wages have been revised vide letter dated 02/11/2010, the respondent authorities should consider petitioners' representation in the matter of grant of wages. Respondent No.2 shall consider petitioners' grievance and pass necessary order in that regard to grant them appropriate wages on the rates applicable to them as revised from time to time. The matter should be decided within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The petitioners shall make fresh representation individually or collectively. 7.

With the aforesaid observation, this petition is finally disposed off. SD/- (Manindra Mohan Shrivastava) Judge Tumane