The Lieutenant Governor And ORS v. S.Santosh Kumar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

Circuit Bench at Port Blair ...

MAT/18/2023 IA No.CAN/2/2023 The Lieutenant Governor and Ors. ... Appellants Vs.

S. Santosh Kumar and Ors. ... Respondents Mr. Shatadru Chakraborty Mr. Dibesh Dwivedi ...for the Appellants Mrs. Anjili Nag ...for the Respondents November 17, 2023 [SR] Item No.26 1.

The appeal is arising out of an order dated 23rd August, 2022 in a Writ Petition filed for a direction to the respondent authorities for grant of 1/30th of the minimum of the relevant pay scale along with applicable dearness allowance from the date of the appointment of the writ petitioners.

2.

We have heard Mr. Shatadru Chakraborty, learned counsel for the appellants extensively. Mr. Chakraborty has submitted that irrespective of the date of appointment of the DRMs, by reason of the Office Memo. dated 22nd September, 2017, the writ petitioners may be entitled to such financial benefit with retrospective effect from 2017 and not for any earlier period notwithstanding the office Memo. dated 7th June, 1988. It is submitted that although the office Memo. of 7th June, 1988 issued by the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievance and Pension, Government of India has provided for casual workers to be paid at the rate of 1/30th of the minimum of the relevant pay scale plus relevant dearness allowance where the same work was

entrusted to the casual workers and the regular employees. The said office order was never implemented.

3.

Moreover, it is submitted that the Division Bench presided over by Justice Rajasekhar Mantha in MA/9/2020 has considered the memo dated 7th June, 1988 and Memo. dated 22nd September, 2017 and disposed of the said appeal by directing the Administration to extend financial benefits to all DRMs under the Administration the benefit of the circular dated 22nd September, 2017 with further mandate that all other benefits of DRMs and other persons arising out of the circular dated 7th June, 1988 shall remain preserved and undisturbed to be agitated in the event they are aggrieved by any scheme proposed by the Administration.

4.

Mr. Chakraborty has submitted that in the contempt proceeding, certain orders were passed by the aforesaid Bench against which a Special Leave Petition being Civil Appeal No. 5014 of 2023 was preferred in which the Hon'ble Supreme Court has directed the compliance of the direction passed by the Coordinate Bench positively by 30th November, 2023. 5.

It is thus submitted that since the Administration is in the process of framing of the scheme for all the DRMs across the board by 30th November, 2023. In the event the scheme does not extend such benefit to the present writ petitioners, they may challenge the said scheme for denying of such financial benefits to the writ petitioners.

6.

Mrs. Anjili Nag, learned Advocate for the respondents submits that the present writ petitioners are not covered by the order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench and they were not parties in the said proceedings inasmuch as there are several orders passed by the Single Judge as Coordinate Benches extending similar benefits to the writ petitioners' based on the office Memo dated 7th June, 1988. In fact our attention is drawn to few of the orders taken note of by the learned Single Judge in the order dated 23rd August, 2022.

7.

The writ petitioners are lifeguard and they are admittedly engaged as casual workers discharging the work of regular employees. They are engaged in different places and generally termed as Daily Rated Mazdoors(DRMs) in view of the Office Memo. of 7th June, 1988 issued by the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievance and Pension, Government of India, they are entitled to be paid at the rate of 1/30th of the minimum of the relevant pay scale along with relevant dearness allowances as they were discharging same and similar work as that of the regular employees.

8.

It is now well settled by a catena of decision that the temporary employees ( Dairy Rated Mazdoors, ad hoc appointees, employees appointed on casual basis, contractual employees and likewise) to be entitled to minimum of the regular pay scale on account of their performance, the same duties which are discharged by those engaged on regular basis against the sanctioned post (See: State of Punjab vs. Jagjit Singh - 2017(1) SCC 148 followed and applied in Sabha Shanker Dube vs.

Divisional Forest Officer 2019 (12) SCC 297, paragraph 12 and 14).

9.

The appellant has accepted the earlier orders passed by the learned Single Judge as well as the Division Bench in similar matters relying on the Office Memo of 7th June, 1988 and have implemented the said orders. In view of the fact the present petitioners are similarly placed and circumstanced, also entitled to the benefit of the Office Memo of 7th June, 1988. 10.

There being no difference on the facts in relation to cases where such benefits was extended to persons similarly placed, we are not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge.

11.

The appeal fails. Accordingly, connected application is also disposed of.

12.

However, there shall be no order as to costs. 13.

The time to comply with the order of the learned Single Judge is however extended by three months as prayed for. 14.

Urgent photostat copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance of usual formalities. (Soumen Sen, J.) (Siddhartha Roy Chowdhury, J.)