MAKHANLAL TAMRAKAR Vs. SOUTH EASTERN COAL FIELDS LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE order in this writ petition shall also decide connected petitioners; W.P. No. 846/97 Prem Nath Mishra v. South Eastern Coal Fields Ltd. and another and W.P. 832/97 Samykta Khadan Mazdoor Sangh and others v. South Eastern Coal Fields Ltd. and another. All the petitioners as employees under the respondent -South Eastern Coal Fields Ltd. are aggrieved by their fitment in the regular scale of pay and claim pay protection. In W.P. 828/97, the petitioner has initially worked as Painter in the capacity of daily rated worker on permanent basis. Persuant to an advertisement for direct recruitment, he was selected and appointed as Typist -cum -Clerk Grade -II. In W.P. No. 846/97, the petitioner was working as Electrician on daily rated basis regularly. He also sought direct recruitment persuant to an advertisement to the post of Data Entry Operator. In W.P. 832/97, the eight petitioners' represented by their Union (Petitioner No. 1) were initially appointed as General Mazdoor on daily rated basis and they also sought direct recruitment to the post of Security Guard.

(2.) CONSEQUENT upon their direct recruitment persuant to an advertisement and selection, the local authorities of the Management of S.E.C.L. Sohagpur Dist. Shahdol (M.P.) fixed them on the pay scale of the post of which they were directly recruited by fitting them in the concerned pay scale at a stage above their total emoluments in the earlier post and thus the pay protection was extended to them. They were accordingly allowed to draw salary on the basis of their fixation. Specifically, on a letter dated 2/6th September, 1996 (Annexure P -5) of the Deputy CPM (I.R.), the question of pay scale and pay protection was examined by the Head Office of S.E.C.L. Bilaspur. By impugned communication dated 25/26.9.1996 (Annexure P -6) the Head Office informed the local Management that the pay protection was available only to such employees who were regularised from daily rated basis to permanent basis in any post but such pay protection cannot be extended to daily rated employees who sought direct recruitment voluntarily to another post on permanent basis. Consequent to the above communication of the Head Office, the pay of the petitioner -employees was reduced from July, 1996. Learned counsel Shri Arvind Shrivastava appearing for the employees and Union, in this petition, contends that there is no justification to discriminate, for the purpose of pay protection, employees who were regularised on administrative ground from daily/monthly rated jobs to regular jobs as well as Officers' similarly circumstanced and the employees like the petitioners' who sought direct recruitment from one post to another persuant to an advertisement and selection. The prayer made on behalf of the petitioners' is that this Court should direct that the pay of the petitioners be also protected in the pay scale for the post to which they were appointed.

(3.) SHRI Rajendra Menon, learned counsel appearing for the respondents (S.E.C.L.) in reply submits that the question of pay fixation and fitment into the new pay scales on direct recruitment of the petitioners' to the post advertised have to be considered on the basis of the terms or the settlement reached between the Management and the Employees. Reference is made to the terms of By -pertite settlement contained in Annexure R -1 and Annexure R -2. The relevant parts of the terms of the settlement read as under :