Wpss/1665/2022 Of Hemant Ram v. Principal Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax

|**SL.**<br>**No**|**Date**|**Office Notes,**<br>**reports, orders or**<br>**proceedings or**<br>**directions and**<br>**Registrar’s order**<br>**with Signatures**||**COURT’S OR JUDGES’S ORDERS**| |---|---|---|---|---| |||||WPSS No.1665 of 2022<br>**Hon’ble Man oj Ku m ar Tiw ar i, J.**<br>Mr. Prashant Khanna, Advocate for<br>the petitioners.<br>Mr. H.M. Bhatia, Advocate for the<br>respondents.<br>Heard<br>learned<br>counsel<br>for<br>the<br>parties.<br>On<br>the<br>oral prayer of learned<br>counsel<br>for<br>the<br>petitioner,<br>he<br>is<br>permitted<br>to<br>implead<br>‘Principal<br>Commissioner of Income Tax, ReFAC<br>(AU)-1, Haldwani, as respondent no. 3.<br>Petitioners<br>to<br>produce<br>amended<br>memo of parties in the Registry, within<br>24 hours.<br>Petitioners are engaged through<br>contractor to serve as Multi Tasking Staff<br>between<br>19.08.2013<br>to<br>17.11.2016.<br>According to the petitioners, they are<br>being<br>paid<br>only<br>`<br>7,681/ -<br>as<br>remuneration; while, there are other<br>daily wage employees serving in the<br>Income Tax Department, who are being<br>paid<br>`21,000/ -<br>as<br>wages.<br>This,| |according to the petitioners, is unjust| |---| |and<br>arbitrary.<br>They<br>have<br>claimed| |protection of equal pay for equal work.<br>Reliance has been placed upon a<br>judgment rendered by Division Bench of| |this Court in Special Appeal No. 88 of| |2021.<br>By means of this writ petition,<br>petitioners have sought the following| |reliefs:<br>“i) Issue a writ, order or direction in<br>the nature of mandamus commanding<br>and directing the respondents to make<br>payment to the petitioners as per the<br>Instruction/ Direction dated 30.09.2019<br>(contained as Annexure no. 08 to this<br>writ petition).<br>ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in<br>the nature of mandamus commanding<br>and directing the respondents to pay<br>salary to the petitioners to the tune as<br>the similarly situated daily wagers are<br>getting pursuant to the order dated<br>29.12.2017<br>(contained<br>as<br>Annexure<br>no.03 to this writ petition) as well as<br>order dated 21.04.2022 (contained as<br>Annexure no. 06 to this writ petition).”<br>Learned<br>counsel<br>for<br>the<br>respondents,<br>however,<br>submits<br>that| |petitioners are not directly employed by| |Income Tax Department and they are| |serving on contract and they are being| |paid salary through the contractor.| ||||Without entering into the merits of<br>the claim made by the petitioners, this<br>Court thinks that ends of justice would<br>be met, if petitioners are permitted to<br>make<br>representation(s)<br>and<br>the<br>Competent Authority be directed to take<br>decision thereupon at the earliest.<br>Accordingly, the writ petition is<br>disposed of by permitting the petitioners<br>to approach the Competent Authority by<br>making representation(s) for redressal of<br>their grievance, within two weeks from<br>today. If such representation(s) is made<br>within<br>the<br>stipulated<br>period,<br>the<br>Competent Authority shall examine their<br>claim and take decision, as per law,<br>within a period of six weeks’ from the<br>date<br>of<br>receipt<br>of<br>representation(s)<br>alongwith certified copy of this order.<br>**( Man oj Ku m ar Tiw ar i, J.)**<br> 30.08.2022<br>_Arpan_| |---|---|---|---|