Madhya Pradesh High Court
Dayanand Sharma vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 17 September, 2021
Author: Anand Pathak
1
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
BENCH AT GWALIOR
W.P.No.19266/2021
(Dayanand Sharma Vs. State of M.P. and Ors.)
Gwalior,Dated:17.09.2021
Shri Chetan Kanungo, learned counsel for petitioner through
V.C.
Shri Devendra Chaubey, learned Government Advocate for
respondents/Sate.
Heard on admission.
The instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India is preferred by the petitioner seeking following reliefs:
1. The petition may kindly be allowed.
2. 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 & Ors. [(2017) 3 SCC 436].
3. Any other relief which the Hon'ble Court deems fit in
the facts and circumstances of the case.
Petitioner who was initially appointed as daily wage
employee in the Water Resources Department submits that despite
having been classified as a 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 05.09.2018 passed in W.P.
No.20650/2018, relevant portion whereof reads as under:
"The law in regard to the benefits flowing from an HIGH
COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH 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:
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 pay-scale, 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 pay-scale 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 HIGH
COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH 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
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.
(Anand Pathak)
Ashish* Judge
ASHISH
CHAURAS
IA
2021.09.1
7 18:46:34
+05'30'
