Madhya Pradesh High Court
Mewaram vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 3 March, 2021
Author: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
1
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
WP No.1101/2021
Mewaram vs. State of M.P. & Ors.
Gwalior, Dated : 03.03.2021
Shri B.P. Singh, Counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Deepak Khot, Government Advocate for the State.
Learned counsel for the State has sought issuance of notice in
the present case since it is his contention that instead of disposing of
this matter in limine, it would be appropriate to hear the State before
deciding the controversy as according to the State counsel in all
probability, the petitioner must have been declared as Sthai Karmi
under 2016 executive instructions issued by the State of M.P., and
therefore, any order passed without hearing the State would lead to
an incongruous situation where petitioner on one hand has received
benefits under Sthai Karmi scheme and would also become entitled
of the benefits flowing from the ratio of decision Ram Naresh
Rawat Vs. Sri Ashwani Ray & Ors. reported in (2017) 3 SCC 436.
This Court, after hearing learned counsel for the State, does not
deem it appropriate to issue notice for the simple reason that even if
the petitioner has been benefited by the Sthai Karmi scheme, he
cannot be deprived of the benefit flowing from the decision of Apex
Court in Ram Naresh Rawat (Supra) as the judgment the Apex
Court is the law of land which is not subservient to the executive
instructions issued by the State qua Sthai Karmi Scheme. The
benefits flowing from the decision of Ram Naresh Rawat (Supra)
2
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
WP No.1101/2021
Mewaram vs. State of M.P. & Ors.
of grant of wages equivalent to the minimum of the regular pay-scale
of the corresponding post in the regular establishment without
increments, cannot be denied to the petitioner who has been
classified as a permanent employee.
It is needless to emphasize that in case the benefit
received/receivable by the petitioner under Sthai Karmi Scheme is
not as beneficial as the benefit flowing from the verdict of Ram
Naresh Rawat, then the petitioner would certainly be entitled to the
benefit under Ram Naresh Rawat Case. However, in case benefit
flowing from Sthai Karmi Scheme is comparatively more beneficial,
then it is for the petitioner to choose whether to opt for Sthai Karmi
Scheme or to go in for the lesser benefit under Ram Naresh Rawat
verdict. Any such option made by the petitioner in latter eventuality
as aforesaid, would be binding on the employer.
The basic grievance of the petitioner is that despite being
classified as a permanent employee on the post of Gangman vide
order dated 02.03.2005, the petitioner still continues to receive daily
wages which is less than the minimum stage of regular pay-scale
without increments.
The pecuniary entitlement of daily wager after being classified
as permanent employee is no more res integra in view of the decision
of the Apex Court in Ram Naresh Rawat Vs. Sri Ashwani Ray &
3
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
WP No.1101/2021
Mewaram vs. State of M.P. & Ors.
Ors. reported in (2017) 3 SCC 436 in which it is held thus:-
"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-scale, at the same time, he would be
getting only minimum of the said payscale with no
increments. It is only the regularization 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, the petitioner on being classified as a
permanent employee is entitled to minimum of the regular pay-scale
without increments.
4
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
WP No.1101/2021
Mewaram vs. State of M.P. & Ors.
Accordingly, the respondents are directed to consider the case
of the petitioner in terms of law laid down by the Apex Court in the
case of Ram Naresh Rawat (supra) and grant benefit if not already
granted as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of two
months from the date of passing of this order.
This order shall become otios or ineffective if the respondents
have cancelled the order of classification passed in favour of
petitioner.
With the aforesaid direction, the present petition stands
disposed of.
No cost.
(G.S. Ahluwalia)
Judge
(alok)
Digitally signed by ALOK KUMAR
Date: 2021.03.03 13:42:10
+05'30'
