u.» ^ f^sr-^-C- oy-<=Le^^ Of^- M°»iA'5-'i" (levy-^-<^w^i '3•^•o, ^.5,, ^oP;>ad^-^ f IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE ATBirASPUR (C.G.) WRIT PETITION N0.1952/2006 AMENDED PETITION PETITIONERS .^> ^s^^> g>y:: 'Li3^'" .--^ ./"' ^ " ^ ^ ^f'~^/~ f ^ // V.K. Chandrakar, S/o. D.R. Chandrakar, Aged about 46 years, Occupation - service, Presently working as F.E.W., F.F.D.A., R/o. T-11, A. Adarsh Nagar, Near Chhattisgarh Angan, Durg, (C.G.) Shahid Ali Khan, S/o. Alauddin Khan, Aged about 45 years, Occupation - service, Presently working as F.E.W., F.F.D.A., R/o. Ashrafi Manzil, Kasaridih,Dist.Durg(C.G) K.P. Verma, S/o. Dohailal Verma, Aged about 41 yea.rs, Occupation - service, Presently working as F.E.W., F.F.D.A., R/o. Vill. Somai Phard, P.0. Bargada Saja, District Durg, (C.G.) T.P. Verma, S/o. A.S. Verroa, Aged about 49 years, Occupatlon - service, Presently working as F.E.W., F.F.D.A., R/o. MIG-1, 207 Hudco, Bhilai, Dist. Durg(C.G-) A.K. Kaneria, S/o. B.R. Kaneria, Aged about 43 years, Occupation - servlce, Presently working as F.E.W., F.F.D.A., R/o. Aditya Nagar, Titurdih, Dist.Durg(C.G) K.P. Patel, S/o. Tikaram, Aged about 47 years, Occupation - servlce, Presently working as F.E.W., F.F.D.A. •r- 1° R/o. Street No. 23, Qr. No. 5-A, Nandini Nagar, Dhamda, Dist. DurgfC.G.) 7. S.K. Sahu, S/o. Baldu Ram Sahu, Aged about 45 years, Occupation - servlce, Presently working as F.E.W., F.F.D.A., R/o. Village Baijalpur, P.0. Ninwa, Tahsil Bemetara, Dist.Durg(C.G) 8. V.N. Thakur, S/o. Lal Singh Thakur, Aged about 46 years, Occupation - service, Presently working as F.E.W., F.F.D.A., R/o. Village Gadaghat, Post Karesara, Tahsil Saja, Dist. Durg (C.G.) 9. V.K. Verma, S/o. Hannu Lal Verma, Aged about 48 years, Occupation - service, Presently working as F.E.W., F.F.D.A., R/o. Street No. 13, 13-D, Sector-4, Bhilai Nagar, Dist. Durg (C.G.) 10. O.S. Pawar, S/o. Raghvendra Singh, Aged about 49 years, Occupation - servlce, Presently working as F.E.W., F.F.D.A., R/o. Village Dudia, Post Arjunda, Tah. Ganderdih, District Durg(C.G) 11. N.S. Deshmukh, S/o. Baraturam, Aged about 43 years, Occupation - servlce, Presently working as F.E.W., F.F.D.A., R/o. Village Korguda, Post Malighori, Tahsil Balod, Dist. Durg (C.G.) 12. H.R. Sahu, S/o. Ganga Ram, Aged about 4 8 years , Occupation - servlce, Presently working as F.E.W., F.F.D.A., R/o. Village Dhamna, ;r i.1 J. ^, '-^. Post Dhamna, Tahsil Patan, Dist. Durg (C.G.) 13. K.K. Banchor, S/o. Ramcharan Banchor, Aged about 48 years, Qccupation - service, Presently working as F.E.W., F.F.D.A., R/o. Village & Post Karela, Tahsil Patan, District Durg (C.G.) 14. Anil Choubey, S/o. Virendra Kumar, Aged about 47 years, Occupation - servlce, Presently working as F.E.W., F.F.D.A., R/o. Kayasth Para, Post 6c District Durg (C.G.) 15. Shrikant Dewangan, S/o. Khiya Ram, Aged about 45 years, Occupation - servlce, Presently working as F.E.W., F.F.D.A., R/o. Adarsh Nagar, Near Chhattisgarh Angan, Durg (C.G.) 16. Sanjay Sarode, S/o. T.D. Sarode, Aged about 44 years, Occupation - Service, Presently working as F.E.W., F.F.D.A., R/o. Tataline, Kohka, Bhilai, District Durg (C.G) 17. R.P. Sahu, S/o. Jhumuk Sahu, ' Aged about 47 years, Occupation - service, Presently working as F.E.W., F.F.D.A., R/o. Village & Post Borai, District Durg (C.G.) 18. Ajeet Gupta, S/o. K.K. Gupta, Aged about 48 years, Occupation - servlce, Presently working as F.E.W., F.F.D.A., R/o. Motipara, Near Sharda Talkies, Durg(C.G-) ^ ^ 19. Sharad Verma, S/o. R.A. Verma, Aged about 46 years, Occypation - service, Presently working as F.E.W., F.F.D.A., R/o. Katur Doond, Durg (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through its Secretary, Department of Fisheries, Mantralaya, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur(C.G) 2. Director, Fisheries Department, Raipur (C.G.) 3. Collector, District Durg (C.G.) 4. Chief Executive Officer, Fish Farmers Development Agency, Durg (C.G.) 5. Deputy Secretary, Chhattisgarh State Fisheries Department, Raipur (CG) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI, MANDAMUS, PROHIBITION AND FOR OTHER SUITABLE WRIT OR WRITS, ORDER OR ORDERS, DIRECTION OR DIRECTIONS. HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR PETITIONERS RESPONDENTS WRIT PETITION N0. 1952 OF 2006 V.K. Chandrakar & Others 1t Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Others /'•- (Writ Petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Ms Fouzia Mirza, Advocate for the petitioners. Shri M.P.S. Bhatia, Dy. Govt. Advocate for the State. ORDER (ORAU (Passed on this 5th day ofApril, 2010) 1. By this petition, the petitioners seek a direction to the respondent authorities to grant benefit of 5 Pay Commission w.e.f. 1-1-1996 with all consequentia] benefits with interest at the rate of 18% per annum. 2. The indisputable facts, in nutshell, which are germane for disposal of the case, are that the petitioners are Fisheries Extension Workers working in Fish Farmers Development Agency (for short "FFDA"). The State Government has framed Madhya Pradesh Revision of Pay Rules, 1987 (for short "the Rules, 1987"). The pay scale of the petitioners was revised as 1150-30-1210-40- 1450-50-1800 vide order dated 21-3-1990 (Annexure - P/2). Further, the officers of FFDA who were sent on deputation to the State Government were granted the benefit of 5 Pay Commission w.e.f. 1-1-1996, butthe petitioners have been denied the benefit of 5 Pay Commission w.e.f. 1-1-1996 and they have been granted the benefit of 5 Pay Commission w.B.f. 1-4-2007 by order dated 31-1-2007 (Annexure - P/9). Thus, this petition. i--"=-uy-inactlQn- (~>n ^-L ^ Ms Mirza, leamed counsel appearing for the petitionersubmits that non-grant of 5 Pay Commission w.e.f. 1-1-1996 to the petitioners and to grant the said benefit to other employees of FFDA who have been sent on deputation to the Government is discriminatory and unreasonable, Thus, the petitioners are entitled like other Government employees the benefrt of 5 Pay Commission w.e.f. 1-1-1996. On the other hand, Shri Bhatia, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate appearing for the State submits that the employees of FFDA who were on deputation to the State Government were subsequently absorbed as Government employees. Thus, they were given the benefits of 5 Pay Commissionw.e.f. 1-1-1996. The petitioners are not entitled to the benefit of 5 Pay Commission w.e.f. 1-1- 1996 at par with the Government employees because the FFDA is an autonomous body and it was initially sponsored by the World Bank Scheme, subsequently by the Central Government and the State Government. The FFDA employees are not automaticatly entitledto the benefit of 5 Pay Commission w.e.f. 1-1-1996, as there should be a specific order granting the benefit to the employees of FFDA. Grant of benefit under the Rules, 1987 cannot be referred to and the same does not mean that in future all the revision of pay in case of Government employees would be applicable to the petitioners also. It is further submitted that Rule 65 Part 5 of the Finance Code clearly provides that the employees of FFDA woutd not be entitled to any monetary benefits contrary to administrative sanction as in the case on hand, administrative ^B» sanction has been granted on 25-1-2007 to grant relief w.e.f. 1-4-2007. 1 have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the pleadings and the documents appended thereto. Admittedly, FFDA is not a department of the Government and the same is only sponsored by the Government. The petitioners carinot claim parity at par with the Government employees for the purpose of grant of benefit of 5 Pay Commission w.e.f. 1-1-1996. The petitioners have not produced any other documents to buttress their contentions that either any assurance was made earlier or any order in this regard was passed. The other employees of the FFDA gone on deputation to the State Government and later on they have been absorbed in the Government employment and, as such, they were granted the benefitof the 5 Pay Commission w.e.f. 1-1-1996. Thus, there is ho question of parity, as parity depends on various factors namely; source of employment, working conditions, rules and regulations, which govern the working condition of the employees. In the present case, no ground has been made out in favour of the petitioners to treat them at par with the employees ofthe State Government. For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, the writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No order asto costs. Gowri Sd/- Satish K.Agnihotri Judge ..e