DASHO ORAON Vs. CENTRAL COALFIELDS LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ petition the prayer of the petitioner is for issuance of an appropriate direction to the respondents to regularize his service on the post of Munshi and to pay the difference in wages since 25.4.1997.

(2.) THE claim of the petitioner is that he was appointed as General Mazdoor Category No. 1 in the respondent 'scompany on 12.8.1989. Subsequently by office order dated 25.4.1997 the petitioner was authorized to work as a Munshi with immediate effect (Annexure -2), The further case of the petitioner is that he has been discharging duty of a Munshi. but he is being given payment admissible to the post of category No. 1 Mazdoor. In all the correspondences he is being addressed as Munshi and in fact he has been discharging the duties of Munshi and as such he is entitled to get higher pay scale of a Munshi. According to the petitioner, he possesses all the requisite qualifications which are required for the said post. The petitioner also claims that he has been discharging the duty of a Munshi for a long period and he is entitled to be regularized on the post of Munshi and to get pay scale of Munshi and consequent difference of pay, which he claims with effect from 25.4.1997.

(3.) AFTER hearing the parties and going through the records. I find that the respondents have addressed the petitioner as Munshi and in one office order issued by the reject Officer Kedia Under Ground Project being Ref. No. OM/KUGP/97/591 -95. dated 25.4.1997, whereby the petitioner has been allowed to work as Munshi at Mine No. III with effect from 25.4.1997. The said office order dated 25.4.1997 has been annexed as Annexure -2 Lo the writ petition, Further in another order No. PO/KUGP/ 97/260 -62, dated 9.7.1997 (Annexure -3) addressed to the peULioner in which warning was issued stating that most of tubs are under loaded due to his poor supervision which is serious matter which results into stock shortage and financial loss to the company and he has been warned to properly supervises the loading and that on failure, disciplinary action under the company rule may be initiated against him. The said orders dated 25.4.1997 and dated 9.7.1997 have not been disputed by the respondents. Thus it: is evident from the said orders issued by the respondents that the petitioner has been addressed as Munshi and discharging some type of supervisory duty,