Jamna Prasad Raikwar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 3646 MP

                                                        1                               WP-19296-2019
                              The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
                                         WP-19296-2019
                              (JAMNA PRASAD RAIKWAR Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS)


                      Jabalpur, Dated : 27-07-2021
                            Heard through Video Conferencing.

                            Shri Prabhakar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner.
                            Shri Santosh Yadav, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondents/State.

Petitioner has called in question order dated 21.06.2019 passed by respondent No.4. By impugned order, case of petitioner was considered for

grant of regular pay scale as he has completed three years of service in work charged and contingency paid establishment. Said claim of petitioner was rejected on ground that petitioner is part time Sweeper and therefore, his case is not covered by order dated 21.01.2016 passed in W.P. No. 9827/2012 (Ram Naresh Prajapati and others vs State of M.P. and others).

Petitioner has challenged the impugned order on ground that petitioner was appointed in work charged and contingency paid establishment on post

of Sweeper on 29.11.1990. As per recommendation of 6 th Pay Commission which was made applicable w.e.f. 01.01.2006, pay scale prescribed by

Commission is applicable to regular employees of work charged and contingency paid establishment. In view of same, petitioner is also entitled for

grant of regular pay scale recommended by 6th Pay Commission.

Counsel appearing for the petitioner referred to Annexure P/4 and relied on Schedule of M.P. Work Charged and Contingency Paid Employees Recruitment and Condition of Service Rules, 1975. In Schedule, part time Sweeper were included as employees who are paid from contingency fund. On basis of Schedule, counsel for the petitioner submitted that as petitioner is paid from contingency fund, therefore, as per Rules of 1975, he is entitled to

get benefit of 6th Pay Commission. Petitioner relied on judgment passed in W.P. No. 11122/2018 (Gulab Prasad Tiwari and others vs State of M.P. and others), dated 29.08.2019, in which daily rated employees of NVDA Signature SAN Not Verified

Digitally signed by VINOD KUMAR TIWARI Date: 2021.07.30 11:52:41 IST 2 WP-19296-2019 th were held entitled to get benefit of 6 Pay Commission. Petitioner also relied on order dated 21.01.2016 passed in W.P. No. 9827/2012 (Ram Naresh Prajapati and others vs State of M.P. and others). Relying on said judgment, it is submitted that part time Sweepers are also entitled to get benefit of regular pay scale. On basis of aforesaid facts and circumstances of

the case, petitioner prayed for quashing of order contained in Annexure P/1

and for granting him benefit of regular pay scale as recommended by 6th Pay Commission.

Counsel appearing for the respondents opposed the prayer of petitioner. It is submitted by him that case of Ram Naresh Prajapati and others vs State of M.P. and others is distinguishable. Division Bench of this Court in W.A. No. 1486/2019, by order dated 02.12.2019 has allowed appeal on ground that part time Sweepers (Swachchhakar) are not entitled to get regular pay scale as they are not covered by circular dated 10.05.1984. In case of Ram Naresh Prajapati (supra), petitioners therein were initially appointed on part time basis and, thereafter, appointed/upgraded as attendant, bull attendant, servant, cattle attendant, watchman and sweeper between 2003 to 2005. Since petitioner in that case had completed three years of regular service, therefore, they were given the benefit of regular pay scale. Petitioner has not completed three years of regular service and does not fulfill criteria laid down in circular dated 10.05.1984. In view of same, writ appeal filed by the appellants was allowed and order passed by learned Single Judge was set aside. It was further submitted that service condition of petitioner is not covered by Madhya Pradesh Work Charged and Contingency Paid Employees Recruitment and Condition of Service Rules, 1975. The case of petitioner is covered by Madhya Pradesh Veterinary Department Contingency Paid Employees Recruitment and Condition of Service Rules, 1979. As per Rule 2(b) of Madhya Pradesh Veterinary Department Contingency Paid Employees Recruitment and Condition of Service Rules, part time Sweeper is not included within definition of contingency employees, which reads as Signature SAN Not Verified

Digitally signed by VINOD KUMAR TIWARI Date: 2021.07.30 11:52:41 IST 3 WP-19296-2019 under:

"2.(b) "Contingency paid employee" means a person employed for full time in an office or establishment and who is paid on monthly basis and whose pay is charged to office contingencies excluding the employees who are employed for certain periods only in the year;"

Petitioner in his petition and rejoinder has not stated that petitioner is regularized in service and he is covered by definition of contingency paid employee under Section 2(b) of Madhya Pradesh Veterinary Department Contingency Paid Employees Recruitment and Condition of Service Rules, 1979.

Counsel appearing for the petitioner is unable to point out from any

document that petitioner is employed for full time in office of establishment and paid on monthly basis. On the contrary, appointment letter shows that petitioner is only engaged for part time. Therefore, writ petition filed by the petitioner is dismissed.

                                                                                 (VISHAL DHAGAT)
                                                                                      JUDGE


                      vkt




Signature
 SAN      Not
Verified

Digitally signed by
VINOD KUMAR
TIWARI
Date: 2021.07.30
11:52:41 IST