@ ? ginwg wnch O€tW . ‘\ \ IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHI-IATTI GARH AT BILASP WRITPETIHON s No. ‘%K% /2011 PETITIONER Ramjatan Sahu, £3. Late Shri Dhanupdhari Sahur Aged about 46 years., R/o North Chlrmm Colliery, Gelhapani, District-Koriya (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS 1. South Eastern Coalfields Limited, through Chairman—cum—Managing Director, South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Seepat Road, Bilaspur (C.G.) 2. Director (Personnel), South Eastern\ Coalfields Limited, Seepat Road, Bilaspur (co) 3. General Manager (Personnel \ Administration), South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Seepat Road, Bilaspur (C.G.) 4. Chief General Manager, South Eastern, Coalfields Limited, Chirmm Area, District-J Koriya (C.G.) 5. a Sub—Area Manager, South Eastern\/ Coalfields Limited, North Chirmiri, District- Koriya (C.G.) Personnel Manager, South Eastern‘ 1 Coalfields Limited, North Chirmm Colliery, District. Koriya (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ’ wwwwzzw/U [Wt 200 m Tam? (Wm mm 11%? m mm?W w m1: $ aim m SB : [Eon’bie Shri ManindraL Mohan Shrivastava, J.§ 27.6.20}. 1 Shri Chandresh Shriva:;tava, counsel for the petitioner. Heard on admission. ,. The petitiOner has approached this Court for issuance of direction to respondents/em ployer to grant him benefit of pay— scale and other benefits of Canteen Supervisor. Learned counsel for th petitioner submits that though the petitioner was initially appoi ted as Sampling Majdoor, vide order dated 8.11.2003 (Annexure P-3), he was employed to look after canteen work W.e.f. 10. 1 1.2033, pursuant to which, the Charge of canteen was taken—over. Thereafter, another order was passed on 17. 112003 (Annexure 13-4), which shows that‘the petitioner was appointed for the work of .su ervision of canteen and was sent for training to take—up the ne job of Canteen Supervisor. After obtaining training, as it evid nt from Annexure P-5, identity card ' (Annexure P—6) was issue showing petitioner as Canteen Supervisor. Learned counsel for the petitioner referred to various documents (Annexure P—7 P—8) to submit that thereafter the petitioner has been continuo sly performing the work of Canteen Supervisor, ‘but the pay~sc e and other benefits of Canteen WT vi 200 ‘anamm (Wu) WWW mmm mwm _l_ WW WW Supervisor are not beingéxtehded to him. He further, submits that 1‘11 View of the standing order the petitioner has now acquired the status of a coniirmed Canteen Supervisor It is lastly submitted that detaiied represefntation having “been made to the Shief General Manager, S.E.C.L., Chirmiri Area, the benefits as claimed by the petitioner are not The benefits which are being claimed by the petitioner are based on assertion that the 'petitioner has been employed and is Working as Canteen SuPervisor. The Petitioner has also Claimed benefit of standing orders. Considering that the documents which have been placed on record show that claim of the petitioner is not frivolous and requires consideratiom the resp 3ndents, in addition to being an employer, is a State under Article 12 of the Constitution of lndia and therefore is required to deal with the employees in just and fair manner as a model employer. Therefore, if the petitioner is working as Canteen Supervisor, the claim of the petitioner for grant of benefits, admissible to Canteen Supervisor, required proper examination, The respondents are therefore under an abligation to consider and take appropriate decision Accordingly, respondent No. 4 petitioner’s representation and take decision on his claim for f . %3if%m3n%¥r "5 . ¢ l I \ fi " k "._/"V;.«A)I4‘./ I A ‘ t\ ‘ I being extended. is directed to consider Wm m 200 WWW (Wu) {warm-swam “ a. 3 ’— WWW' wmR % Wm a grant of benefits admissible ‘to Canteen Supervisor. The decision . should be taken by the concer [led respondent Within a periad of 4 months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. In case, the petitioner is still aggrieved, it. would be open for him to take recourse to such remedy, including the remedy of raising industrial disputes before the “‘orum created under the law. With the aforesaid. observations, the petition is iinally disposed oii ’ t ‘ iA‘ I Sd/- ' Manindra Mohan Shrivasta ,a Judge ‘ , mumm, mime—Fm 40—2/201 1—1 ,so,ooo.