MUNNA LAL Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Brief facts of the case are that the petitioners have come up with the case, that they are working with the respective respondents/Government Inter Colleges, as a Class IV employee on the respective posts of Sweeper, as well as, Chaukidars, as against the respective date of appointment as it has been detailed in the writ petition which normally pertains to the year 2012, except for that of petitioner no.1, who is working since 2010.

(2.) The petitioners contend, that it is not in dispute that in their respective capacity of their engagement, they have been satisfactorily and consistently working ever since 2012 and 2010 respectively. But despite of having requisite qualification and fulfilling all the eligibility criteria, to be appointed against the aforesaid post, the respondents have adopted an unfair labour practice of by taking the services from the petitioners, equivalent to that of the regular employee, who have been appointed against the respective post, without being adequately remunerating, the petitioners with the salary which could have been made payable to them in the light of the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgment of State of Punjab and others vs. Jagjit Singh and others. The petitioners contends that they have been consistently representing their claim, before the respective principal's who happens to be their appointing authority, but their claim has not been considered in the light of the directive issued in para - 44 of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court as reported in (2017) 1 SCC 148, State of Punjab and others vs. Jagjit Singh and others. Particularly the reference has been made to para-44 of the said judgment which is extracted hereunder:-

(3.) The fact that the petitioners are working as against the respective post, from their respective date of appointment as detailed in the writ petition are the facts which are disputed in the counter affidavit.