news details |
|
|
| HC upholds judgment on pay scale for sanitary supervisor | | | Early Times Report
Jammu, Apr 20: In a LPA filed by the State against the judgment of writ court whereby the court allowed the petition with the direction to the respondents to fix their pay scale against the post of Sanitary Supervisor with effect from the date when they were holding the post, a Division Bench of the High Court Comprising Justice Dhiraj Singh Thakur and Justice Rashid Ali Dar dismissed the appeal of the State with the observations that the Jammu and Kashmir Urban Local Bodies Institutions (Management) Service Recruitment Rules, 2008, were promulgated in the year 2008.
Before that there were no rules governing the services of the petitioners. Admittedly, the petitioners came to be engaged as Sanitary Supervisors and were regularized in the year 2000 and 2005 but in the pay scale of 2550-3200. It is also admitted that similarly situated other Sanitary Supervisors were enjoying the higher pay scale of 3050-4910.
The DB further observed that on the date when the petitioners came to be regularised, there were no recruitment rules which prescribe the technical qualification which are now sought to be enforced for the post of Sanitary Supervisor. The petitioners, therefore, could not have been denied the benefit of the pay scale of 3050-4910.
The DB while quoting the judgment of Apex Court observed that it can be seen that when the petitioners-respondents herein were engaged and regularized as Sanitary Supervisors, there were no such technical requirement prescribed for appointment as Sanitary Supervisor as has been now envisaged. The regularization of the petitioners, therefore, could not be said to be contrary to rules applicable neither the petitioners can be said to be unqualified with a view to justify the denial of a pay scale of 3050-4910. The allegations that the petitioners were appointed by an incompetent authority and that the engagement was de hors the rules is also not a reason sufficient to deny them the pay scale inasmuch as the respondents have not taken any action against the petitioners based upon such allegation and have rather cemented their relationship with the petitioners by passing the order of regularisation. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
