Madhya Pradesh High Court
WP/2654/2024 of KAMAL SINGH Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH on 2 February 2024
COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESHAT GWALIORBEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND PATHAKON THE 2[nd] OF FEBRUARY, 2024
WRIT PETITION No. 2654 of 2024
BETWEEN:-
1.KAMAL SINGH S/O SHRI LAL SINGH (S.N. 47).,AGED 59 YEARS, OCCUPATION: SERVICE OFFICEOF P.W.D. DEPARTMENT SUB DIVISION GUNADIVISION GUNA DISTRICT GUNA (M.P.) (MADHYAPRADESH)AGED 59 YEARS, OCCUPATION: SERVICE OFFICEOF P.W.D. DEPARTMENT SUB DIVISION GUNADIVISION GUNA DISTRICT GUNA (M.P.) (MADHYAPRADESH)
2.BALA PRASAD S/O SHRI TULARAM SHARMA (S.N.164), AGED 53 YEARS, OCCUPATION: SERVICE,OFFICE OF P.W.D. DEPARTMENT SUB DIVISIONGUNA (MADHYA PRADESH)164), AGED 53 YEARS, OCCUPATION: SERVICE,OFFICE OF P.W.D. DEPARTMENT SUB DIVISIONGUNA (MADHYA PRADESH)
3.KEHAR SINGH S/O SHRI JAGNATH (SN 56), AGED54 YEARS, OCCUPATION: SERVICE, OFFICE OFP.W.D. DEPARTMENT SUB DIVISION GUNADIVISION GUNA DISTRICT GUNA (MADHYAPRADESH)54 YEARS, OCCUPATION: SERVICE, OFFICE OFP.W.D. DEPARTMENT SUB DIVISION GUNADIVISION GUNA DISTRICT GUNA (MADHYAPRADESH)
4.PARMAL S/O SHRI ARJUN (SN 77), AGED 48YEARS, OCCUPATION: SERVICE, OFFICE OF P.W.D.DEPARTMENT SUB DIVISION GUNA DIVISIONGUNA DISTRICT GUNA (MADHYA PRADESH)YEARS, OCCUPATION: SERVICE, OFFICE OF P.W.D.DEPARTMENT SUB DIVISION GUNA DIVISIONGUNA DISTRICT GUNA (MADHYA PRADESH)
5.LAXMINARAYAN S/O SHRI KALYAN (SN 42), AGED58 YEARS, OCCUPATION: SERVICE, OFFICE OFP.W.D. DEPARTMENT SUB DIVISIO GUNA,DIVISION GUNA DISTRICT GUNA (MADHYAPRADESH)58 YEARS, OCCUPATION: SERVICE, OFFICE OFP.W.D. DEPARTMENT SUB DIVISIO GUNA,DIVISION GUNA DISTRICT GUNA (MADHYAPRADESH)
6.ASHARAM S/O SHRI RAM KISHAN (SN 127), AGED47 YEARS, OCCUPATION: SERVICE, OFFICE OFP.W.D. DEPARTMENT SUB DIVISION GUNADISTRICT GUNA (MADHYA PRADESH)47 YEARS, OCCUPATION: SERVICE, OFFICE OFP.W.D. DEPARTMENT SUB DIVISION GUNADISTRICT GUNA (MADHYA PRADESH)
(BY SHRI K.K. SHRIVASTAVA- ADVOCATE)
.....PETITIONER
AND
2
1.THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGHPRINCIPAL SECRETARY PUBLIC WORKSDEPARTMENT, MANTRALAYA, VALLABHBHAWAN BHOPAL MP (MADHYA PRADESH)PRINCIPAL SECRETARY PUBLIC WORKSDEPARTMENT, MANTRALAYA, VALLABHBHAWAN BHOPAL MP (MADHYA PRADESH)
2.ENGINEER IN CHIEF PUBLIC WORKSDEPARTMENT 27-28 NIRMAN BHAWAN, BHOPAL(MADHYA PRADESH)DEPARTMENT 27-28 NIRMAN BHAWAN, BHOPAL(MADHYA PRADESH)
3.CHIEF ENGINEER (NORTH) PUBLIC WORKSDEPARTMENT GWALIOR (MADHYA PRADESH)DEPARTMENT GWALIOR (MADHYA PRADESH)
4.SUPERINTENDENT ENGINEER PUBLIC WORKSDEPARTMENT CIRCLE GUNA DISTRICT GUNA(MADHYA PRADESH)DEPARTMENT CIRCLE GUNA DISTRICT GUNA(MADHYA PRADESH)
5.EXECUTIVE ENGINEER PUBLIC WORKSDEPARTMENT DIVISION GUNA, DISTRICT GUNA(MADHYA PRADESH)
(BY SHRI N.S. TOMAR- GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FORRESPONDENT/STATE)
.....RESPONDENTS
This petition coming on for admission this day, the court passed the following:
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
The present petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution prays for the following reliefs:- “(i) That, a direction may kindly be given to therespondents to give the benefit ofregular/minimum pay scale of the post on whichthe petitioners are working and classified aspermanent employees as w.e.f. 24.04.2013 andpay the difference of arrears on fixation of payfrom the date of classification along with interestat the rate of 18% p.a. as per the law laid downby Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case ofRamnaresh Rawat (supra).
(ii) That, the respondents may kindly be directedto regularize the services of the petitioner andmake the member of GPF;
(iii) Cost of this petition may kindly be awarded;and
iv) Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deem fit in the facts and circumstances of thecase may kindly be granted to the petitioner.”
It is the case of the petitioners that they are appointed as daily wageemployees in the respondents/Department as Labour. Counsel for thePetitioners submits that despite having been classified as permanent employeesunder the M.P. Industrial Employment (Standing Order) Act 1961 only benefito f regular pay scale has been extended to them as per the policy dated7.10.2016. It is submitted that they are claiming classification benefit prior toimplementation of the policy. He submits that the classification order of thepetitioners is still intact and has not been cancelled by the authorities at anypoint of time. The law in regard to the benefits flowing from an order ofclassification is now settled in view of the decision of Apex Court in the case of Ram Naresh Rawat Vs. Ashwini Ray reported in 2017 (Vol 3) SCC 436 , relevant extract of which is reproduced below for convenience and readyreference:
“4........ The precise submission is that once they areconferred the status of permanent employee by thecourt and it is also categorically held that they areentitled to regular pay attached to the said post, notonly the pay should be fixed in the regular payscale,the petitioners would also be entitled to theincrements and other emoluments attached to the saidpost. 18. Insofar as petitioners before us areconcerned they have been classified as 'permanent'.For this reason, we advert to the core issue, whichwould determine the fate of these cases, viz., whetherthe s e employees can be treated as 'regular'employees in view of the aforesaid classification? In other words, with their classification as 'permanent',do they stand regularized in service?
2 6 . From the aforesaid, it follows that though a'permanent employee' has right to receive pay in thegraded pay- cale, at the same time, he would begetting only minimum of the said payscale with noincrements. It is only the regularization in servicewhich would entail grant of increments etc in the pay-scale.
27. In view of the aforesaid, we do not find anysubstance in the contentions raised by the petitionersin these contempt petitions. We are conscious of thefact that in some cases, on earlier occasions, the StateGovernment while fixing the pay scale, grantedincrements as well. However, if some persons aregiven the benefit wrongly, that cannot form the basisof claiming the same relief. It is trite that right toequality under Article 14 is not in negative terms(See Indian Council of Agricultural Research & Anr.v. T.K. Suryanarayan & Ors.9 ).
28. These contempt petitions are, accordingly, dismissed.
Counsel for respondents is having no objection to the innocuous prayermade by the counsel for the petitioners.
In view of the above and considering the statement made by the counselfo r the petitioners, it is directed that the petitioners will submit separaterepresentation to the competent authority and in turn, the competent authority isdirected to dwell upon the same and decide the same, subject to verification thatthe order of classification of the petitioners is not cancelled at any point of time,by passing a speaking order within a period of three months from the date ofreceipt of certified copy of this order. Arrears if any be worked out, as anecessary consequence and be paid to the petitioner within a further period of two months.
With the aforesaid direction, petition stands disposed of with no order as to the cost.
Vishal
(ANAND PATHAK)JUDGE