Pijush Kanti Bandyopadhyay v. Coal India Ltd, Through Its Chairman,

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 2857 of 2021 Pijush Kanti Bandyopadhyay S/o Late Shri M Bondopadhyay, Aged About 59 Years Working As Subordinate Engineer (Civil), R/o B-163, Vasant Vihar Colony, Southeastern Coalfields Ltd. Seepat Road, Bilaspur, District - Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. Pin - 495006, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioner

Versus

1.

Coal India Ltd, Through Its Chairman, Through Its Chairman - Cum - Managing Director, Coal Bhawan Premise No-04 Mar, Plot No - A F- Iii, Action Area - 1 A, Newtown, Rajarhat, Kolkata - 700156, District : Kolkata, West Bengal 2.

South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Through Its Chairman - Cum - Managing Director, Seepat Road, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh, Pin - 495006., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 3.

General Manager (Personnel And Executive Establishment), South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Seepat Road, Bilaspur District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh, Pin - 495006., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ----Respondents For Petitioner :

Mr. Gary Mukhopadhyay, Advocate For Respondents :

Mr. K.K. Shrivastava, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order on Board 07/07/2021 1.

The petitioner has filed the present writ petition for an appropriate direction to the respondents No.1 & 2 to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner so far as the pay anomaly that has arisen in the pay of the petitioner as compared to an identically situated person namely Mr. Rakesh Puranik, both of whom were

promoted from the non-executive to the executive cadre vide the same order.

2.

According to the petitioner, the basic pay of the petitioner as compared to the basic pay of Mr. Puranik are different inspite of the fact that they are both placed in the same cadre in the same level. The petitioner at the time of promotion to the executive cadre was drawing the basic of Rs.25,310/- and Mr. Rakesh Puranik when he joined in the executive cadre, he has been given the basic of Rs.25,890/- and this difference in pay has subsequently grown up further by efflux of time and as on date there is a huge difference between the basic pay of the two officers and that can have an adverse effect on the retiral dues that the petitioner would be getting.

3.

The counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner herein is to retire on the 31.07.2021 i.e. this year and there is hardly a month time left and therefore the representation which the petitioner has made to the respondents be decided at the earliest. 4.

To the limited relief that the petitioner seeks the counsel for the respondents do not oppose. Accordingly, the writ petition at this juncture stands disposed of directing the respondents to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner at the earliest preferably before the retirement of the petitioner, so far as the dues payable to the petitioner can be quantified accordingly. 5.

It is expected that the respondents would take a decision after due scrutiny of the case of the petitioner with that of Mr. Rakesh Puranik

and shall take a decision strictly in accordance with rules and regulations governing the field.

6.

With the aforesaid observations, the present writ petition stands disposed of.

Sd/- (P. Sam Koshy) Judge Ved