Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt Sadhana Takole vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 26 February, 2021
Author: Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
BENCH AT GWALIOR
W.P. No. 4021/2021
(Smt. Sadhna Takole Vs. The State of M.P. & others)
(1)
Gwalior dated 26.02.2021
Shri Chetan Kanungo, Advocate for the petitioner.
Ms. Padamshri Agrawal, Panel Lawyer for the
respondents/State, on advance notice.
Heard finally with the consent of the parties.
The present petition has been filed under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India prays for the following relief:-
"1- The petition may kindly be allowed;
2. Respondents be directed to grant the
benefits to the petitioner in accordance with
the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the
case of Ram Naresh Rawat vs Ashwini Ray &
others [(2017)3 SCC 436]
3- Any other relief which the Hon'ble
Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances
of the case"
Petitioner submits that despite having been classified as
a permanent employee, no benefit of regular pay scale has
been extended to her.
It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that
identical petitions have already been disposed of by the Co-
ordinate Bench of this Court by order dated 5.9.2018 passed in
W.P. No.20650/2018, relevant portion whereof reads as under:
"The law in regard to the benefits flowing from
an order of classification 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 ready reference:
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
BENCH AT GWALIOR
W.P. No. 4021/2021
(Smt. Sadhna Takole Vs. The State of M.P. & others)
4........ The precise submission is that once they
are conferred the status of permanent employee
by the court and it is also categorically held
that they are entitled to regular pay attached to
the said post, not only the pay should be fixed
in the regular payscale, the petitioners would
also be entitled to the increments and other
emoluments attached to the said post.
18. Insofar as petitioners before us are
concerned they have been classified as
'permanent'. For this reason, we advert to the
core issue, which would determine the fate of
these cases, viz., whether these 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? 26. From the
aforesaid, it follows that though a 'permanent
employee' has right to receive pay in the
graded pay- cale, at the same time, he would
be getting only minimum of the said pay-scale
with no increments. It is only the regularisation
in service which would entail grant of
increments etc. in the pay-scale.
27. In view of the aforesaid, we do not find any
substance in the contentions raised by the
petitioners in these contempt petitions. We are
conscious of the fact that in some cases, on
earlier occasions, the State Government while
fixing the pay scale, granted increments as
well. However, if some persons are given the
benefit wrongly, that cannot form the basis of
claiming the same relief. It is trite that right to
equality 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".
In view of above, it is directed that in case it is found
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
BENCH AT GWALIOR
W.P. No. 4021/2021
(Smt. Sadhna Takole Vs. The State of M.P. & others)
that the classification of the petitioner is intact, the petitioner
shall be paid minimum of the pay scale admissible to the post
on which she has been classified as permanent employee
without any increment. If any arrears are worked out, the same
shall be paid as expeditiously as possible preferably within a
period of three months.
With the aforesaid directions, the instant petition stands
disposed of.
(S.A. Dharmadhikari)
Judge
(and)
ANAND
SHRIVASTAV
A
2021.02.26
17:56:32
+05'30'
