Suresh Kumar Sh5Rivastava vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 5781 MP

                                     1
           THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH,
                         BENCH AT GWALIOR
                            WP-19786-2021
        (Suresh Kumar Shrivastava Vs. State of M.P. & Ors.)


Gwalior, Dated : 21/09/2021

      Shri Shivam Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner.

      Shri G.K. Agrawal, learned Government Advocate for the

respondents/State.

The present petition has been filed under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India prays for the following relief:

"(i) That, the petition may kindly be allowed.

(ii) 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. Ashwani Ray & Others [(2017) 3 SCC 436].

(iii) Any other relief, which the Hon'ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case."

Petitioner who happens to be initially engaged 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,

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT GWALIOR WP-19786-2021 (Suresh Kumar Shrivastava Vs. State of M.P. & Ors.)

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:

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 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 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT GWALIOR WP-19786-2021 (Suresh Kumar Shrivastava Vs. State of M.P. & Ors.)

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. Vs. T.K. Suryanarayan & Ors.).

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 from the date of

receipt of copy of the order.

With the aforesaid directions, the instant petition stands

disposed of.

Certified copy as per rules.

(S.A. Dharmadhikari) Judge

rahul Digitally signed by RAHUL SINGH PARIHAR DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH GWALIOR, ou=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH GWALIOR, postalCode=474011, st=Madhya Pradesh, 2.5.4.20=eac942476567cd1b39b3da46068403462fdf82ab 676d0cde4dee473fe77953f5, cn=RAHUL SINGH PARIHAR Date: 2021.09.22 10:50:39 -07'00'