0

Joint meeting to held of Housing boards in deciding the pay scale of the employee: High Court Of Chhattisgarh

In case where there is a dispute in the payment of pension between two housing boards, a joint meeting shall be held between two Housing Boards for deciding the dispute. A single-judge bench comprising of Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal adjudicating the matter of Baby T. Verghese v. State of Chhattisgarh(Writ Petition (S) No.1989 of 2008) dealt with the issue whether the relief sought in the writ petition by the Petitioner shall be granted or not.

In the present case, the petitioner promoted to the  Post of  Estate Manager in M.P. Housing Board on 26.09.1994, and later on 31.07.2000, he was promoted to the post of Accounts Officer and thereafter on 31.01.2001  he being   Accounts   Officer of the   M.P.Housing   Board stood superannuated from that  Board though at that very time he was posted at Durg in the territory of the   State of   Chhattisgarh, thereafter C.G.Housing   Board was constituted on   12.2.2004.

On 10.3.2004   the   Madhya   Pradesh   High Court rendered a   decision in which the   Estate Managers of the   M.P.Housing   board were held to be entitled to a pay scale of   Rs.2200­-4000 ( Vivek   Diwan and others v. State of Madhya Pradesh and others). Also, the Petitioner filed a writ petition before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh on   16.1.2008. In petitioner’s representation to the C.G.Housing Board claiming pay scale as granted by the   Madhya   Pradesh   High   Court in  Vivek   Diwan (supra)   has been rejected by the   C.G.Housing   Board on 13.7.2007, which has been called in question in this writ petition.

The   C.G.Housing   Board stating that the petitioner has already retired from the post of Accounts Officer from M.P.Housing Bordon   31.1.2001   as the   C.G.Housing   Board was constituted on   12.2.2004   and only on the amount given by the   M.P.Housing   Board,   pension is being paid to the petitioner,   whereas   M.P.Housing   Board has filed return stating that M.P. Housing   Board is not responsible for payment of revised pay scale and   C.G.Housing   Board is responsible for payment of revised pay scale. 

The petitioner submitted that benefit of revised pay scale on the post of Estate Manager is not being granted by both Housing Boards and he is required to run from pillar to post to get the said benefit as both Housing Boards are denying responsibility to pay the revised pay scale to the petitioner,   which the petitioner is otherwise entitled by order of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, which is not in dispute.

The Respondent submitted that the petitioner has already retired from his service in MP housing Board then why should Chhatisgarh Board pay the Petitioner.

The court held that it is not disputed that MP High court has held that the Estate Managers are entitled to a revised pay scale Rs.2200-4000/- and the Petitioner is claiming enhanced pay scale based on the judgement passed by Madhya Pradesh High Court. Since the Petitioner has already retired from the post of Account’s Officer from M.P. Housing Board, the Respondents are directed,”to consider the case of the petitioner by holding a joint meeting on the date to be fixed by both   Housing   Boards and would consider the case of the petitioner and decide who will pay the amount of revised pay scale to the petitioner within 2 months from the date of receipt of a   copy of this order”.   For that purpose,   the Commissioner of respondents in mutual consultation appoint an officer of appropriate rank to consider the case of the petitioner for the said purpose and following that appointment, the meeting will be held and it will be decided. It is made clear that this   Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.

Click here for the Judgement

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Open chat