cfgoe; (D IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR w.P.(S) No. lgTHI /2o11 (5.3.) x 3{wWxt»x‘xx g:}M ~< , PETITIONERS :1. Smt. Gayatri Nirmalkar W/O' Shri Bhikham Lal Nirmalkar, aged about 44 years, Working as Shiksha. Karmi ,Grade—III, Govt. Primary School Daganiya, Biock— Gunderdehi, Distt.—Durg (C.G.). Smt. Pingala Sahu W/o Shri Dev Kumar Sahu, about— 34 $years, Working as i Shiksha Karmi Grade—II, Govt. Primary School Ruda, Block- Gunderdehi, Distt.— Durg (C.G.). Smt. Pinki Srivastava W/o Shri Kamlesh Kumar Shrivastava, aged about—41 years, Working as Shiksha Karmi Grade-II, Govt. Primary School Kachandur Block— Gunderdehi, Distt.— Durg (C.G.). Smt. Sangita Bais W/o Shri Rakesh Kumar Bais, aged l about 33 years, Working as Shiksha Karmi Grade-III, aged c T w. -, j I A m-mu <‘ , Govt. Primary School Khappervada, Block- Gunderdehi, Distt.-Durg (co). /5. Smt. Satya Dubey W/o Shri ganesh Prasad‘Dubey, aged abOut -36 years, Working as Shiksha Karm’l Grade-II, Govt. Midd Schooi Daganiya, Block— ~ Gunderdehi, Distt.—Durg (C.G.). > le VERSUS RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh ThrouéhN :— the Secretary, Department of Panchayat & Social Welfare, Mantralaya, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) The Director, Panchayat & Social Welfare, Chhattisgarh, Raipur, Distt.— Raipur (C.G.). 3. The Chief Executive Officer, / Janpad Panchayat Gunderdehi, Distt.— Durg (C.G.). ‘ WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA @ H!GH COURT OF CHHATT!$GARH. BILASPUR l SINGLE BENCH : HON’BLE SHRI PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRAT J‘ 1 l PETITIQNERS Smt. Gayatri Nirmaikar and others. W.P. (S) No. 1974 of 2011 Versus _ : RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh and otheré. Shri Jitendra Gupta and Shri Rishi Rahul Soni. counse! for petitioners. Shri Y.S. Thakur, Deputy Advocate General for the State. ORAL ORDER ( 151041201 1 ) , / Fonowing ora! order of the Court was passed by Prashant Kumar Mishra. J. In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of india the petitioners who are working as Shiksha Karmi Grade — ii and Grade - iii 1 have ciaimed’the foliowing relief :- "10. 1 The Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records pertaining to' this case from possession of the respondents for it’s kind perusal; 10,2 The Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a ’writ in the nature of Mandamus or suitable direction oommanding the respondents to extend the petitioners the monetary benefits (Gratuity, Contribution Provident Fund, General Provident Fund, Employee Provident Fund. Employees Pension Fund, Employees Linked Insurance contribution, Traveling allowance, Dearness Allowance, Project Allow/am», Medical Allowance, Accommodation Ailowanceeto) as are being given to the employee of Janpad Panchayat/Jila Panchayat; and %0,3 Any‘other relief, which this Hon’ble Court may deem tit and proper, may also be passed in favour of the petitioner, " \ l l @ (2) Learned counse!s for the petitioners have argued that since under the Rules known as Chhattisgarh Panchayat Shiksha Karmi (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules. 1997 the terms and conditions of the services of the petitioners are required to be simiiar to what is applicable in case of employees of Janpad Panchayat/Jila Panchayats the petitioners are entitled to the same monetary benefits as are being given to the employees of Janpad Panchayat/Jila Panchayat and as such they are also entitled tobe granted benefits of Gratuity, Contribution Provident Fund, General Provident Fund, Employee Provident Fund, Employees Pension Fund, Employees Linked Insurance contribution, Traveling allowance, Dearness Allowance, Project Allowance, Medical Allowance, Accommodation Allowance etc. They would further submit that the petitioners are discriminated vis-a-vis employees of Janpad PanchayatIJila Panchayat which is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of lndia. tv/ (3) After hearing learned counsels for the petitioners this Court is of the opinion that the petition deserves to be dismissed, The order of appointment has been tiled as Annexure PI1 to Annexure P/5 in which it is clearly mentioned that they shall be entitled to Panchayat Pay Scale as applicable to the particular grade of Shiksha Karmi on which each of the petitioners have been appointed. In so far as proceeding initiated before the Empioyees Provrdent Fund Organization is concerned the said issue has to be dealt With by the said Organization which has passed the order Annexure P/7 and the petitioner would be at liberty to take recourse to the provision contained under the Employees ProVident Funds and Miscellaneous PrOVISions Act V952 @ (4) in so far as petitioners claim regarding grant of monetary benefits Iike the employees of Janpad PanchayatslJila Panchayats, it is to be seen’the said issue is in the realm of poiicy decision of the State Government and the writ Court cannot issue any mandamus directing the State or employer of the petitioners to tix the particular pay scale or grant monetory benetits on the ground of parity with other employees who are holding different posts than Shiksha Karmi. ln the matter of Secretary, Finance Department and others vs. West Bengal Registration Service Association and others reported in 1993 (Suppl.) (1) SCC 153 and State of Haryana and another vs. Haryana Civil Secretariate Personal Staff Association reported in 2002 (S) SCC 72 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held thatrCourts cannot direct fixation of particular pay scale. I( (5) Plea of discrimination is also not available to the petitioners because the petitioners are not holding the same posts like other JanpadiJila Panchayat employees. Article 14 applies when discrimination is alleged between persons belonging to the same class. Since the petitioners are Shiksha Karmis and are claiming parity with regard to monetory benefits vis-a-vis other employees of Janpad/Jila Panchayat, discrimination under Article 14 of the Constitution of lndia is not made out. (6) ln view of the above, the instant petition deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. Sdl- Judge Prashant kumar Mishra l i