High Court Of ChhattisgarhWPS/6231/2018disposed off

Salim Ahamad Khan v. Chhattisgarh State Of Power Distribution Company Limited

2018-09-24Hon'Ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy2 pages

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 6231 of 2018

1. Salim Ahmad Khan S/o Shri Jamil Ahmad Khan, Aged About 30 Years R/o Village And Post Podi, Tahsil Bodla, Police Station Podi, District Kawardha (Kabirdham) Chhattisgarh

2. Jayant Kumar Sahu, S/o Late Shri Santram Sahu, Aged About 40 Years R/o Village And Post Podi, Tahsil Bodla, Police Station Podi, District Kawardha (Kabirdham) Chhattisgarh.

---- Petitioners

Versus

1. Chhattisgarh State Of Power Distribution Company Limited Through Managing Director Danganiya, Raipur Chhattisgarh.

2. Executive Director (O&M) Chhattisgarh State Of Power Distribution Company Limited, Raipur Chhattisgarh.

3. Shri Ganga Ram Sinha (Contactor) Kashridih Road, Police Station Pulgaon Durg, District Durg Chhattisgarh.

----Respondents For Petitioner :

Mr. K.P.S. Gandhi, Advocate For State :

Mr. Adhiraj Surana, Dy. G.A.

Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order on Board 24/09/2018 Heard.

1. The petitioners, by way of this petition, seeking for 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 the Supreme Court in case of State of Punjab Vs. Jagjit Singh [2017 (1) SCC 148] in support of their case.

2. A careful perusal of record shows that the petitioners till date have not made any representations to the employer for redressal of their grievances. Without representation being made to the employer for redressal of their grievances, 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 light of judgment of the Supreme Court in case of Jagjit Singh (supra). In case such a representation is made, it is expected then the authorities concerned 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.

3. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition stands finally disposed of. No order as to costs.

Sd/- (P. Sam Koshy) Judge Ved