IN»»^: ^£^<o.n r^ \ IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR fC.G.y RESPONDENTS ^ :'b! /../ (^ f \ tisQH COUi' ^A- 'SSQ f^\ -^ ./ ^/y ^ .. /^ •Tsy WI^IT PETITION fS) N0. r:fT°)| OF2010 (Single Bench Service matter) PETITIONER : K.O. JOHN aged about 55years, S/o Late O. Varghese, ManagerA/Cs &Admn. M.G.M. SeniorSecondary School, Sector-6, Bhilai Nagar, Tah. &Distt. Durg (C.G.) VERSUS 1 1. M.G.M.SeniorSecondarvSchool, Through: President/Secretary, M.G.M. Senior Secondary School, Sector 6/ Bhilai, Tah. & Distt. Bh+teri I>UftC (C.G.) 490006 °tA< 2. CENTRAL BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION, Through: Secretary, Central Board of Secondary Educatjon, Shiksha Kendra-2 Communjty Centre, Preet - Vihar, DELHI 3. MR. SAJAN THOMAS Hon. Correspondent Office of the Corresppndent M.G.M. Senior Secondary School, Sector6, Bhilai Nagar (Bhjlai), Tah.&Distt. Durg (C.G.) PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 1 g ^ tt -^y ^ / -'y .^y/ ^'' -^ ./. ^ ? ^ ^INNI^^ HSGH COURTOF CHHATTISGARH : BSLASPUR PETITIONER WRIT PETiTION (S) N0. 7191 OF 2010 K.O.John RESPONDENTS Versus IV1.G.M. Senlor Secondary Schooi & Others (Writ Petition ynder Artlcle 226 ofthe Constitution of !ndia) Single Bench : Hon!b!e Shri Satlsh K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- ShriV.G.Tamaskar,Advocateforthepetitioner. Shri M.P.S.Bhatia, Advocate forthe respondents No.1 & 3. None appears for respondent No.2, despite servjce of notice. ORDER(ORAL) (Passed on this 6th day of April, 2011) 1. Chalienge in this petition is to the order dated 09.10.2010 (Annexure P-2), whereby, the petitioner has been dedined the benefit of sixth pay commission, which was implemented w.e.f. 01.06.2009. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed by order dated 14.07.2006 (Annexure P-1), wherein, it was cleariy provided inter alia that the petitioner wouid be entitled to draw the annuai increment for next year onwsrds. There was no mention about the nature of the appointment. Thus,. on perusal of the order, it appears that the petitioner was appointed on regular basis on a consolidated saiary of Rs. 8000/- per month. 3. According to learned counsei for the petitioner, to utter surprise, the petitioner received the impugned ietter dated 09.10.2010 (Annexure P-2), wherein without affording an opportunity of hearing, it was stated by the respondent No.l/Schoo! that he was r •:"~: x' y. i^.. 'y K v ^// ^.^y ''^'^s^^1^^' 9 not a permanent staff of the School, hence, no Provident Fund facility was extended to him tlll date. It was further stated that since the petitioner was not a permanent staff ofthe Schooi, thus, he was not entitjed to benefit of sixth pay commission, which is unjustified and bad in iaw. 4. On the other hand, Shri Bhatia, learned counsel appearing for the respondents No. 1 & 3 has fiied a preliminary submlssion. On a query, being asked, asto whether the respondents would like to fi!e the detailed affidavit, iearned counse! very fairly and categorically submits that no further affidavit is necessary. 5. The sole contention of learned counsei for the respondents is that since the petit'ioner was appointed on a consolidated pay scale, his appointment was not permanent and as such, he was not entttled to benefit of sixth pay commissjon. !n support of his submlssion, iearned counsei has not pointed out any documents statlng that grant of consoiidated pay means, no regular appointment. 6. Thus, the contention of the respondents that the petitioner was granted consoiidated pay, therefore, he was not permanent empioyee is without any basisand from reading of the order dated 14.07.2006 (Annexure P-1), it is nowhere stated that the petitioner was a temporary employee or nature of the appointment of the petitioner was not permanent. Needless to mention that it was cleariy stated in the appointment order that the petitioner wouid be entitled to draw annuai incrementon the nextyear onwards. \;.^'<-.^^- •-\ J 3 7. According to the petitioner, he may be treated as permanent empioyee as all the employees of the School are entitled to benefit of the sixth pay commission. 8. In vlew of the above-stated reasons, the respondent No.1 & 3 is directed to consider case of the petitioner to grant proportionate benefit of sixth pay commission to the petitioner also, as his appointment appears to be In the nature of permanent appointment. The Court has reached to this conclusion on the basis that there is no document produced by the respondents to Indicate that the regular employee is not granted the consoiidated pay. 9. Accordingly, the petition js ailowed to the above extent. No order asto costs. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Ashok