Madhya Pradesh High Court
Nandlal Badhai vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 20 January, 2022
Author: Vivek Agarwal
1
The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
WP No. 2975 of 2021
(NANDLAL BADHAI Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS)
Jabalpur, Dated : 20-01-2022
Heard through Video Conferencing.
None connected for the petitioner.
Shri Pushpendra Kumar Verma, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
Petitioner has challenged the order dated 07/10/2016 issued by State Government of
M.P, General Administration Department providing for a scheme for regulation of
terms and conditions of service of daily wagers terming it against the interest of the
petitioner specially clause 1.5, which provides that no arrears will be payable.
Learned counsel for the petitioner had not appeared on 23/02/2021, 06/04/2021, and
today also nobody is appearing on behalf of petitioner. However instead of
dismissing the petition, petition and relief claimed are perused with the help of Shri
Pusphpendra Verma, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
Petitioner is seeking quashing of impugned order and claims relief as follows:-
(i) Issue a writ in the nature of Certiorari quashing the impugned order No. F-5-
1/2013/1/3, dated 07/10/2016 (Annexure P-1), passed by respondent no.2, so far it
is against the interest of petitioner specially clause 1.5;
(ii) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to grant arrears
including D.A, increments, seniority, appropriate regular pay scale etc.from the date
of appointment in the interest of justice.
(iii) Call for the records of the case of the petitioner.
(iv) Any other reliefs which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in favour of
petitioner may also be given, costs may also kindly be awarded in the interest of
justice.
The ground for challenging the impugned order dated 07/10/2016 is it does not
provide for payment of any arrears. Petitioner has placed reliance on the decision of
coordinate Bench of this Court in W.P No. 7635/2015 (Sultan Singh Vs. State of
M.P & others) decided on 05/11/2015 and similar orders filed in the case of
Signature Not
Kaluram Narwariya Vs. State of M.P & others (W.P No. 2000/2015) in support of
SAN
Verified
Digitally signed by
TARUN KUMAR
SALUNKE
Date: 2022.01.24
16:47:11 IST
this petition.
However fact of the matter is that right of permanently classified employee have
been crystallized by Supreme Court in case of Ram Naresh Rawat Vs. Ashwini Ray
& others, (2017) 3 SCC 436 and in view of that position and also the fact that
Scheme is floated with a view to take action in regard to daily wages employee, who
have been denied benefit of regularization and have been termed as permanently
classified employee, when tested in the light of judgment rendered by the Supreme
Court in case of Ram Naresh Rawat (supra) and also in view of the fact that said
policy of the State Government contained in Annexure P-1 has been made
prospective there being no material on record to show that it will be retrospectively
applicable, this petition challenging the order dated 07/10/2016 when tested on
touch stone of Kaluram Narwariya(supra) and Sul t an Singh (supra) is not
maintainable inasmuch as this policy was never put to test either in case of Sultan
Singh or in the case of Kaluram Narwariya but the common grievance in both cases
was that petitioner therein were classified as permanent employee. Their permanent
status was not taken away, yet, they were not given benefit attached to the said
permanent post beside benefits of D.A, increment, seniority and other benefits. In
that back drop, the Coordinate Bench of this Court directed the respondents to grant
increments attached to the pay scale and if rule permit to extent benefit of D.A in
favour of the petitioner.
However Supreme Court in case of Ram Naresh Rawat(supra) has held that there is
distinction between pay parity and regularisation. It has also noted that order of High
Court to grant pay scale attached to the posts to which they were working has been
upheld by the Supreme Court in State of M.P Vs. Sultan Singh Narwariya & others,
S.L.P (C) No. 20025 of 2011. However, there is no specific direction for grant of
increments. Relying on the judgment in State of Punjab & others Vs. Jagjit Singh
(2017) 1 SCC 1, wherein distinction has been drawn between the grant of benefit of
"equal pay for equal work" to temporary employees on the one hand. In case of
Mahendra L .Jain Vs. Indore Development Authority & other, (2005) 1 SCC 639 ,
the Supreme Court has held that permanent classification does not amount to
regularisation, as the matter relating to recruitment is governed by a separate statute.
Therefore, in light of law laid down in case of Ram Naresh Rawat, right of
permanently classified employee have been crystallized. Further Annexure P-1 is on
a different footing, providing benefit to daily wagers, who could not be regularized.
Being a welfare scheme, it is open to the State authorities to decide the cut of date
depending on their financial resources as held by the Supreme Court in the case of
Delhi Veterinary Association vs Union Of India & Ors , AIR 1984 SC 1221 has
held that "At the same time while fixing the pay scales, the paying capacity o f the
Government, the total financial burden which has to be borne by the general public,
the disparity between the incomes of the Government employees and the incomes of
those who are not in Government service and the net amount available for
Government at the current taxation level, which appears to be very high when
compared with other countries in the world, for developmental purposes after paying
the salaries and allowances to the Government servants have also to be borne in mind.
These are, however, not exhaustive of the various matters which should be considered
while fixing the pay scales. There may be many others including geographical
considerations."
Therefore there is no infirmity in the impugned order denying grant of arrears of pay
upon permanent classification and placement in an appropriate pay scale, thus
petition fails and is dismissed.
(VIVEK AGARWAL)
JUDGE
tarun
