Madhya Pradesh High Court
Dheerendra Kumar Parte vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 13 July, 2021
Author: Nandita Dubey
1
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
W.P. No. 9336/2021
(DHEERENDRA KUMAR PARTE AND OTHERS Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND
OTHERS
Jabalpur, Dated : 13.07.2021
Heard through Video Conferencing.
Shri Neeraj Jain, learned counsel for the petitioners.
Ms. Sharda Dubey, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondents/State.
With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter
is heard finally.
By this petition, the petitioners are seeking benefit of regular
pay scale from the date of their initial appointment in the light of
the circulars issued by the State of M.P. and the order passed by the
Division Bench at Indore Bench of this Court, in W.A.
No.346/2008 (Smt. Usha Ranawat Vs. State of M.P. and others),
dated 18.12.2008. By the aforesaid order passed, more than 25 writ
appeals claiming similar benefits were decided and it was directed
that the benefit of pay fixation in the regular pay scale from the date
of regular appointment shall be given to the petitioners therein. In
fact the Division Bench has upheld the orders passed by the learned
Single Judge in various cases and while deciding the writ appeals in
para-19 the following direction were issued by the Division Bench:
"19. In view of the foregoing discussion, the appeal
filed by writ petitioners succeeds and is allowed
whereas writ appeals filed by the State are dismissed
in limine. Impugned order of Single Bench is modified
to the extent that appellant (writ petitioner) in addition
to all benefits awarded by the Single Judge in the
impugned order would also be entitled to claim
arrears of his salary from the date of his initial
appointment. In the other words, the appellant will be
entitled to claim the benefit of his pay fixation i.e.
regular pay scale from the date of his initiate
appointment. Let the calculation be made by
respondents in the light of appellants date of initial
appointment and accordingly, the arrears payable to
appellant towards his salary be paid to him/her in
each case, which are subject matter of these appeals
within a period of 6 months from the date of this
order."
Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, it is seen
that the point involved in this petition has already been put to rest
by the Tribunal long back in Madhukant Yadu Vs. State of
Madhya Pradesh, in O.A. No. 2745/1989, decided on 24.08.1992.
Said decision was assailed by the State Government by preferring
an SLP before the Apex Court, which was registered as SLP No.
6892/1993 and the same has been dismissed on 03.01.1999. Later
on, the Principal Seat as well as the Benches at Gwalior and Indore
have decided hundreds of petitions in the light of the said decision
and, therefore, there is no reason why petitioners can be deprived of
the benefit, which was extended in the case of Madhukant Yadu to
similarly other co-employees.
This Court also in a Division Bench decision in the case of
State of MP and others Vs. Beni Singh Rathod, W.P.
No.648/2002, decided on 01.05.2002 has also affirmed the
aforesaid decision, which is also applicable in this petition.
At this juncture, I may profitably refer to the Single Bench
decision of this Court in the case of Rajendra Kumar Pande and
five others Vs. State of M.P. and others, in W.P. 8928/2003,
decided on 21.04.2004, wherein the decision of Madhukant Yadu
which was affirmed by the Supreme Court, was followed and all the
objections which were raised by the respondents were not accepted.
In view of the above and the judgment delivered in the case
as referred to herein above, this petition is allowed. The respondents
are directed to extend the benefit of regular scale of pay granting
the benefit of notional pay fixation since initial date of appointment
of the petitioners within a period of three months from the date of
communication of this order.
Even though this Court had been following the law laid
down in the case of Smt. Usha Ranawat (supra), in various cases,
and directed only for notional pay fixation and had refused arrears
of pay on the ground that the petitioners have approached this Court
belatedly. It is seen from the records that one such order passed by
this Court in Writ Petition No. 9564/2010 (Smt. Saroj Shah Vs.
State of MP) which was assailed before a Division Bench of this
Court in an intra Court appeal, the learned Division Bench vide
order dated 28.07.2010, passed in W.A. No. 744/2010, after taking
note of the principles laid down in the case of Bir Bajrang Kumar
Vs. State of Bihar and others, AIR 1987 SC 1345, has held that
similar benefit could not be denied to the petitioner and has directed
for extending similar benefits to the petitioner, as has been ordered
in the case of Smt. Usha Ranawat (supra), in the matter of
payment of arrears also.
Keeping in view the aforesaid, respondents are directed to
extend to the petitioners the benefit of pay fixation as has been
extended in the case of Smt. Usha Ranawat (supra), with regard
to payment of arrears and other benefits also.
However, if on examination respondents find that for any
reason whatsoever, the benefit cannot be extended, they shall record
such reasons and communicate it to the petitioners.
The petition stands allowed and disposed of with the
aforesaid.
Certified copy/e-copy as per rules/directions.
(Nandita Dubey)
Judge
b
Digitally signed by BHARTI
GADGE
Date: 2021.07.13 17:19:50
+05'30'
