RAJESH KUSHWAH Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners have filed instant writ petition seeking following reliefs:

(2.) Brief facts, as averred in the writ petition, are that petitioner no. 1 joined the services of the third respondent in the year 1997 and petitioner no. 2 joined the services of the third respondent in the year 2002 on the vacant post of Mali (Gardener) and both of them are continuously working without any hindrance on fixed salary till date. The third respondent is completely State Government owned factory and control of the said factory is with the State Government i.e. the first and second respondents.

(3.) It is averred in the writ petition that at the time of joining with the third respondent in September 1997, petitioner no. 1 was getting the salary of Rs.735/- per month and after about 20 years of services his salary was increased from Rs.735/- to Rs.5,262/- and after statutory deduction of Rs.1,262/- under the law he is getting Rs.4,000/- per month. Similarly, petitioner no. 2 having joined the services with the third respondent in December 2002 was initially getting salary of Rs.1,276/- per month and after completing 15 years of service his salary was increased from Rs.1,276/- to Rs.5,262/- and after statutory deduction of Rs.1,262/- he is getting Rs.4,000/- per month. The petitioners earlier filed an application with Information Officer of third respondent and in reply to question no. 5, it was informed that after the retirement of three incumbents from the post of Mali (Gardener) no one was posted on the said post and other employees, who are available with the third respondent, are engaged in the work of plantation and gardening. It is further averred that as per the information supplied by the third respondent under Right to Information Act, as on 12.03.2018, three posts of Mali (Gardener) are available with the third respondent and same are vacant till date. It is alleged that petitioners are working on the three vacant posts of Gardener (Mali) with the third respondent, but neither the respondents are considering the case of the petitioners for regularization on the vacant post of Gardener (Mali) nor the respondents are giving minimum of salary as other regular employees are getting. It is further averred that like the other employees working with the third respondent, statutory deductions are being deducted from the salary of the petitioners and is being deposited with Employees Provident Fund Organization under the Employees Provident Fund Scheme, 1952, and the Employees Pension Scheme, 1995 and in the papers the third respondent is clearly showing the petitioners as its employee. It is alleged that on the one hand, the State authorities accepted the recommendations of 7th Pay Commission and, on the other hand, the petitioners are getting a meager amount after a long period of continuous service with the respondents which is clear violation of the mandate of Constitution of India.