Madhya Pradesh High Court
Satyanarayan Katare vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 5 October, 2021
Author: Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH,
BENCH AT GWALIOR
W.P.No.21559/2021
( Satyanarayan Katare Vs. State of M.P. and others )
(1)
Gwalior, dated : 05.10.2021
Shri Vishal Soni, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Jitesh Sharma, learned Public Prosecutor for the
respondents/State.
The present petition has been filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India praying for the following relief :
"(a) The petition may kindly be allowed.
(b) Respondents be directed to grant the benefits
to the petitioners 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)].
(c) 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
permanent employee, no benefit of regular pay scale has been
extended to him.
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.21559/2021
( Satyanarayan Katare Vs. State of M.P. and 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 that the
classification of the petitioner is intact, the petitioner shall be paid
minimum of the pay scale admissible to the post on which he has
been classified as permanent employee without any increment. If
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH,
BENCH AT GWALIOR
W.P.No.21559/2021
( Satyanarayan Katare Vs. State of M.P. and others )
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
SP
SANJEEV
KUMAR PHANSE
2021.10.05
17:18:01 +05'30'
