Civil Review No. 112 of 2015. Case: Murat Ram and Ors. Vs The State of Bihar and Ors.. Jharkhand High Court
|Civil Review No. 112 of 2015
|For Appellant: Naresh Prasad Singh and Arvind Kumar Singh, Advocates and For Respondents: Ramit Satender, Advocate
|Dhirubhai Naranbhai Patel and Ratnaker Bhengra, JJ.
|Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) - Order XLVII Rules 1, 47; Sections 114, 151; Constitution of India - Article 226
|January 19, 2017
|Jharkhand High Court
Dhirubhai Naranbhai Patel, J.
This Civil Review application has been preferred for review of an order passed by the Division Bench of this Court in L.P.A. No. 472 of 2008 vide judgment and order dated 7th August, 2015, whereby, the Letters Patent Appeal preferred by these applicants has been dismissed and the order passed by learned Single Judge in W.P. (S) No. 5806 of 2002 dated 22nd October, 2008 has been held as a valid one, whereby, the pay parity sought for by these applicants viz-à-viz regular employees of Jharkhand State Mineral Development Corporation (for the sake of brevity hereinafter to be referred to as the "JSMDC") has not been accepted.
Learned counsel appearing for the applicants submitted that these applicants are daily wagers. The nature of the work being carried out by them is similar to that of the regular employees of JSMDC. This aspect of the matter has not been properly appreciated while dismissing the Letters Patent Appeal and, hence, it requires to be reviewed.
It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the applicants that as per decisions rendered at Annexure-5, Annexure-6 and Annexure-6/1 to be read with the decision rendered by Hon'ble the Supreme Court reported in 2016 (4) JBCJ 305, these applicants should be given pay parity in comparison with the regular employees of JSMDC.
Learned counsel appearing for the applicants has also submitted that other similarly situated employees have been given regular pay-scale. On the basis of the aforesaid arguments, it is submitted that these aspects of the matter have not been properly appreciated by the Division Bench of this Court while dismissing the Letters Patent Appeal.
It is also submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that one Scheme has been floated by the State Government which is known as Service Regularisation of Staffs Irregularly Appointed and Working Subordinate to Jharkhand Government Rules, 2015 which is at Annexure-12 to the supplementary affidavit filed in this civil review application, these Rules have not been properly appreciated while dismissing the Letters Patent Appeal by the Division Bench of this Court.
Learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court in L.P.A. No. 472 of 2008 has dealt with all the arguments canvassed by the learned counsel for the applicants. On merits, the applicants cannot argue in this civil review application. Even if the order passed by the Division Bench is erroneous, the jurisdiction under the civil review is very limited, otherwise, there will be no end of arguments, at all.
Learned counsel appearing for the respondents further submitted that there is no prayer for regularization of these applicants. Without being regularised, these applicants are seeking pay parity in comparison with the regular employees.
Learned counsel for the respondents also submitted that pay parity can be given only when the work carried out by these applicants are similar in nature. To find out similarity in the nature of work and the duties to be performed, cogent and convincing evidences are to be taken. Moreover, these applicants cannot be equated with the regular employees.
Learned counsel for the respondents also submitted that all these aspects of the matter have been properly appreciated while dismissing the Letters Patent Appeal. The so-called Rules of the State of Jharkhand, which have been referred, have no applicability to the facts of the present case.
It is also submitted by learned counsel for the respondents that there was no such prayer, at all in the writ petition that under the Rules, 2015 the services are to be regularised. Regularization is one thing and pay parity is altogether another thing and, hence, this civil review application may not be entertained by this Court.
Having heard learned counsels for both the sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, we see no reason to entertain this civil review application mainly for the following facts and reasons:
"(i) The prayer in the writ petition was to get pay parity by these applicants in comparison with the regular employees of JSMDC. These applicants, who are original appellants, were initially working with M/s. Eastern Manganese and Minerals Private Limited, Koderma which was acquired by the erstwhile State of Bihar in the year 1986 and, thereafter, the said Mica Units have been closed in the year 2003. No mining operation is going on since then.
(ii) All these aspects have been properly appreciated in detail by this Court in Paragraph No. 4 of the order passed by this Court in L.P.A. No. 472 of 2008 vide judgment and order dated 7th August, 2015. Pay parity ground has already been agitated. "Equal pay for equal work" is also not a new argument, canvassed in this civil review application. The same argument in different format has already been argued in the Letters Patent Appeal. It ought to be kept in mind that even if the order passed by the Division Bench in the Letters Patent Appeal is...
To continue readingRequest your trial