JAI PRAKASH MAHTO 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 2.1.1995.

(2.) THE claim of the petitioner is that he was appointed as piece rated loader in the respondent 'scompany on 13.2.1988 and subsequently by office order dated 23.8.1996 the petitioner was authorized to work as a Munshi, according to him, which he has already been doing with effect from 2.1.1995 as per the direction of the Project Officer. The further case of the petitioner is that he has been discharging duty of a Munshi, although he was given payment to the post of category 1 Mazdoor w.e.f. 20.10.1997. The further case of the petitioner is that all along the respondents addressed the petitioner as Munshi and in fact he has been discharging the duties of Munshi for which he is entitled to get higher pay scale of a Munshi. According to the petitioner, he possessed all the requisite qualification, which is required for the said post. The petitioner also claims that he has been discharging the duty of a Munshi for a long period and 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 2.1.1995.

(3.) AFTER hearing the parties and going through the records, I find that the respon -. dents have addressed the petitioner as Munshi and in office order issued by the Superintendent of Mines Kedia under ground project being Ref. No. OM/KUGP/ 96/317 -20. dated 16.9.1996, whereby the petitioner has been authorised to continue as Munshi mentioning therein that he has been working as Munshi with effect from 2.1.1995. The said office order dated 16.9.1996 has been annexed as annexure -1 to the writ petition. Further in another order No. PO/KUGP/97/260 -62. dated 9.7.1997 (Annexure -5) addressed to the petitioner 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 for that he has been warned to properly supervises the loading and that on failure disciplinary action under the company rule may be initiated against him. In subsequent office order No. SOM/KUGP/99734 -36. dated 8.5.1999 some persons have been directed to work as shift incharge addressing them as Munshi. The name of the petitioner appears at serial No. 2 of the said order. The said orders have not been disputed by the respondents. Thus it is evident from the said orders issued by the respondents that the petitioner has been working as Munshi and discharging some type of supervisory duty.