Man Kumari v. Port Blair Municipal Council

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

[ CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR ] *** WPA/160/2022 Man Kumari Vs.

Port Blair Municipal Council Mr.Lokesh Chezian .... for the petitioner Mr. Shatadru Chakraborty Mr. Dibesh Dwivedi ... for the respondents April 04, 2024 [SR] Item No. 12 The writ petition is directed against the order No.992 dated February 19, 2016 by which the claim of the writ petitioner was rejected.

Writ petitioner is a Daily Rated Mazdoor and was asked to discharge the work of Work Charged Mazdoor for a particular period of time. Petitioner was paid the salary commensurate to the post in which the petitioner was asked to discharge.

The petitioner claims that, she must be paid the arrears in respect of the period from January 01, 2006 till May 10, 2011 as per the VIth Pay Commission for the Work Charged Mazdoor. Petitioner approached the writ court by way of a writ petition being WP No. 375 of 2013 which was disposed of by an order requiring the authority to consider as to whether the case of the petitioner is same as K. Ravichandran and others. Pursuant to the order passed in WP No.375 of 2013, an order dated November 21, 2014 was passed where, the claim of the petitioner was rejected.

Such order dated November 21, 2014 was assailed by the writ petitioner by way of a writ petition being WP No.171 of 2015 which was disposed of by an order dated June 30, 2015 requiring the authorities to inform the differences between her and K.Ravichandran and others by a fresh order.

Pursuant to the order dated June 30, 2015, the authorities heard the writ petitioner afresh and passed the impugned order dated February 19, 2016.

The petitioner is claiming the same benefit as that of K.Ravichandran. K.Ravichandran's writ petition is WP No.1217 of 2010 which was disposed of on January 13, 2011. The Court there, directed that, benefits of the corresponding revised scale in terms of VIth Pay Commission should be granted to the petitioners, K.Ravichandran & others (supra). Before the authorities it was contended that, K. Ravichandran & others and the petitioners are standing on different footing. K.Ravichandran and others were working as Daily Rated Mazdoors. Payment of 1/30th scale of pay was directed to be given to K.Ravichandran.

Here the petitioner, although a Daily Rated Mazdoor , was asked to discharge duties of Work Charged Mazdoor, which is a sanctioned post, for a particular period and was paid for such duties. Therefore, she cannot be placed at the same footing as that of K.Ravichandran and others.

The impugned decision contained reasons as to why, the case of the petitioner and K.Ravichandran and others are different. A writ court is concerned with the decision making process and not with decision per se unless, the decision is demonstrated to be perverse. In the facts of the present case, the petitioner was heard prior to passing of the impugned order dated February 19, 2016. It is not

the case of the petitioner that there is a breach of principles of natural of justice.

In such circumstances, I find no reason in the impugned order.

WPA/160/2022 is dismissed without any order as to costs. ( Debangsu Basak, J. )