1 2025:CGHC:2343 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 8512 of 2024 1 - Love Kumar Joshi S/o Chandrashekhar Joshi Aged About 29 Years Presently Working As Data Entry Operator Cum Accountant At Zila Panchayat, Kondagaon, District Kondagaon, C.G. ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Finance, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District Raipur, C.G. 2 - Secretary Department of Panchayat And Rural Development, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District- Raipur, C.G. 3 - State Project Director Shyama Prasad Mukharjee Rurban Mission, Indrawati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District Raipur, C.G. 4 - Development Commissioner Office Of Development Commissioner, Indrawati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District Raipur, C.G. 5 - Chief Executive Officer Cum District Project Coordinator Rurban Mission, Kondagaon, District Kondagaon, C.G. ... Respondents (Cause title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Shri Govind Prasad Dewangan , Advocate For State : Shri Suyashdhar Badgaiya, Dy. Govt. Advocate Digitally signed by GOPAL SINGH Date: 2025.01.29 20:04:05 +0530 2 Hon’ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 14/01/2025 1. The petitioner by the instant petition is challenging the impugned order dated 14.06.2023 (Annexure-P/1) issued by the respondent no.3, whereby the respondent no.3 has rejected the claim of the petitioner for grant of revision of pay/ honorarium by wrong interpretation of the Court order dated 20.04.2023 (Annexure-P/2) passed in the case of the petitioner and other connected matters, whereas the Hon'ble Court was pleased to kind enough to direct to the respondents to grant of revision pay/honorarium to the petitioner by applying the pay matrix level 6, but despite of the Court order, the respondents have rejected the claim of the petitioner. The impugned order issued by the respondents by rejecting the claim of the petitioner is illegal, erroneous and contrary to the law. It cannot be expected from the respondents that they cannot understand the Court’s order, which is very clear that the petitioner is entitled for revision of pay by applying the matrix level 6, but overlooking to the Court order, issued an impugned order by rejecting the claim of the petitioner. The petitioner is working on the post Data Entry Operator Cum Accountant and is posted at Zila Panchayat, Kondagaon, District Kondagaon (C.G.) on contractual basis. The petitioner is getting fixed salary/honorarium to the sum of Rs. 12000/- per months from the date of his initial appointment. The honorarium of the petitioner has not been revised despite the revision of pay issued by the Government in time to time and also despite the Court’s order dated 20.04.2023 (Annexure-P/2). The honorarium/pay of the petitioner has not been revised in view of the revision of pay issued 3 by the Government in time to time, whereas honorarium/pay of the others contractual employees have been revised by the Government in view of the revision of pay. This action on the part of the respondents is highly discriminatory against the petitioner and the action on the part of the respondents seems that they are forcing to the petitioner to work on the very low pay/honorarium. 2. The reliefs sought in the petition are as under: “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records in relates to the case of the petitioner from the possession of respondents for its kind perusal. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside the impugned order/letter dated 14.06.203 (Annexure-P/1) issued by the respondent no.3 i.e. State Project Director, Shyama Prasad Mukharjee Rurban Mission, Indrawati Bhawan, Atal Nagar Naya Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) and further be pleased to direct the respondents to reconsider the claim of the petitioner for grant of revised pay/honorarium in view of the letter/order dated 02.08.2023 (Annexure-P/4) issued by the respondent no.1 and also in view of the Court order dated 20.04.2023 (Annexure-P/2). 10.3 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly further be pleased to direct the respondents to grant the arrears of payment of revised pay/honorarium with interest @ 18% per annum. 10.4 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief/relief's in favour of the petitioners, which the Hon'ble Court deemed fit & just in the facts and circumstances of the case, including awarding of the costs to the petitioner.” 4 3. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the impugned action on the part of the respondents while rejecting the claim of the petitioner is arbitrary and discrimination and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and, therefore, liable to be set aside. The respondents have forced the petitioner to do his work on less/meager payment/honorarium, whereas the persons/employees who are engaged in other project (National Rural Livelihood Mission for short NRLM) of the same department are getting higher payment/honorarium than the petitioner as the petitioner is discharging the same duty under the Shyama Prasad Mukharjee Rurban Mission and the Mission Director of both are same. The respondents ought to have granted revised honorarium to the petitioner equal to the employees who are engaged in other project (National Rural Livelihood Mission for short NRLM), but, the petitioner is getting meager honorarium. There is a genuine claim of the petitioner and honorarium /payment of the petitioner should be enhanced/revised by taking a decision at the earlier preferably within a period of one month. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the department of Panchayat and Rural Development is running various project/mission like National Rural Livelihood Mission (NRLM), Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana (Urban) Mission and others, wherein the persons who are working there are getting more honorarium from the petitioner and both are discharging the same duty. They are getting payment/honorarium of Metric level 6 and are receiving Rs. 18420/- per month and the petitioner is receiving only Rs. 12000/- per months and thus he is in loss of Rs. 6420/- in per month. A report in respect of the claim of the 5 petitioner was submitted by the Director to the respondent No.2 and as per the report, a recommendation was made by the respondent No.3 in respect of the claim of the petitioner. It is pertinent to mention here that the Govt. is executing /implementing its various project/works and this various projects have not been suspended due to Covid-19 pandemic, therefore, the Govt. may take a decision so far as revision of pay of the contract employees SPMRM by exercising the power provided in the Rules, 2012 and 2017. The salary of the petitioner ought to have been revised, but, no action has been taken by the respondents. 4. Learned Counsel appearing for the State submits that on 21.6.2021 respondent No.3 denied the petitioner for grant of revised matrix level 6, but, later on, on 25.10.2021 the authority has recommended for grant of revised honorarium. 5. I have heard Learned Counsel appearing for the parties and perused the material available. 6. Considering the fact that after passing the order dated 21.6.2021, respondent No.3 himself has referred the matter to the Secretary, State of Chhattisgarh, Panchayat and Rural Development Department for grant of revised honorarium and revised pay matrix level 6 to the petitioner. 7. From the impugned order dated 14.6.2023 (Annexure P1) it seems that though the letter dated 25.10.2021 has been taken into consideration, from the impugned order it seems that it has not been taken as per the contents of the letter, as such the authorities are directed to consider 6 the representation of the petitioner in light of letter dated 25.10.2021 in its letter and spirit. 8. With the aforesaid direction, the writ petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Gopal Singh