BHIM SINGH Vs. PANCBAJAT SAMITI SHERGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY means of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed that order dated 1. 6. 1989 (Annex. 4) issued by respondent No. 1 and the order dated 24. 3. 1983 (Annex, 3) issued by respondent No. 2 be quashed and that they be directed to make payment of his salary in the regular pay scale prescribed for the post of Junior Accountant w. e. f. his date of initial appointment, on the principle of equal pay for equal work and also to regularise his services on the said post.

(2.) THE petitioner was appointed as a temporary Junior Accountant on daily wages at the rate of Rs. 30/- per day by the Vikas Adhikari, Panchayat Samiti, Shergarh (respondent No. 1) vide office order dated 25. 3. 1988 (Annex. 2) on purely temporary basis till the regularly selected candidates were made available in pursuance of the directions given by respondent No. 2's letter dated 7-3-1988 (Annex. 1) in the National Rural Employment Programme (NREP)/rural Landless Employment Guarantee Programme (RLEGP ). THE petitioner joined is duties on 24-3-1988. THEre after the respondent No. 2 by his impugned letter dated 24-3-1989 (Annex. 3) directed all the Vikas Adhikaris, Chief Executives of Zila Parishads of Panchayat Samitis to dispense with the services of all temporary or daily rated employees working in the Panchayat Samitis after complying with the provisions of Section 25 F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (briefly the Act ). In pursuance of the said letter Annex. 3, respondent No. 1 by his letter dated 1-6-1989 (Annex. 4) gave the petitioner one month's notice under section 25 F of the Act and also mentioned therein that the petitioner's services shall come to an end w. e. f. 30-6-1989. THE petitioner has alleged that the post of Junior Accountant is still lying vacant and that duly selected persons are not available and as such it was not open for the respondents to dispense with his services, that the letter Annex. 3 has been issued in arbitrary exercise of power as well as the same amounts to unfair labour practice and that the mandatory conditions precedent for the retrenchment as envisaged in Section 25 F (B) of the Act have also not been complied with, and therefore, (he impugned termination order Annex. 4 is illegal and void ab initio. THE petitioner has also contended that he is entitled to get the regular pay scale of the Junior Accountant on the basis of the principle of 'equal pay for equal work', that his services should be regularised and that the impugned orders Annex. 3 & Annex. 4 be quashed. THE petitioner also filed a stay petition and this Court vide its order dated 28. 6. 1989 passed an interim order that the services of the petitioner shall not be terminated in pursuance of order Annexure-4 and as such the petitioner continued in service.

(3.) NOW only controversy, which remains to be resolved is as to whether the petitioner is entitled to get the regular pay scale of Junior Accountant for the period during which he has worked on the said post.