Ramgopal Dhimar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2022 Latest Caselaw 2997 MP

                                                                     1
                            IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR
                                                             BEFORE
                                               HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWAL
                                                         ON THE 3rd OF MARCH, 2022

                                                 WRIT PETITION No. 12273 of 2006

                                 Between:-
                                 RAMGOPAL DHIMAR S/O PARAMLAL DHIMAR ,
                                 AGED   ABOUT    45   YEARS, OCCUPATION:
                                 LABORATORY ATTENDANT BORI DARWAZA
                                 TIKAMGARH (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                                            .....PETITIONER
                                 (BY SHRI ARVIND KUMAR PATHAK, ADVOCATE )

                                 AND

                      1.         THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH VETERNARY
                                 SERVICES BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

                      2.         DUPUTY      DIRECTOR VETERNARY SERVICES
                                 SAGAR DIV. SAGAR (MADHYA PRADESH)

                      3.         DIRECTOR VETERNARY SERVICES SAGAR DIV.
                                 SAGAR (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                                        .....RESPONDENTS
                                 (BY SHRI VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA, PL FOR STATE)

                              T h is petition coming on for hearing this day, the court passed the
                      following:
                                                                      ORDER

Shri Arvind Kumar Pathak, learned counsel for the petitioner.

Shri Vijay Kumar Shukla, learned PL for the respondent/State.

This petition is filed seeking a direction to the respondents to grant appropriate pay scale of Rs.139- 200 to the petitioner, who was appointed on the post of Lab Attendent inasmuch as according to the petitioner pay scale of Lab Attendent is 139-200.

It is submitted that applicant is entitled to claim parity on the post of Lab Attendent, therefore he is entitled to fixation of pay in pay scale of 139-200 from the date of his initial appointment.

Respondents have filed an affidavit in compliance of order dated 17/01/2022 and one Dr. R.K Mehiya, S/o Late Ramnath Mehiya, Director, Department of Animal Husbandry & Dairy, MP Bhopal has filed an affidavit specifically mentioning therein that vide order dated 29/30-01-1979 ten(10) posts

Signature Not of Laboratory Attendent were sanctioned in the pay scale of 125-2-145-2 1/2-150 per month. It is SAN Verified mentioned in the affidavit that the usual qualification required for appointment of Laboratory Attendent Digitally signed by TARUN KUMAR SALUNKE is 10th Class (Science) but that qualification was relaxed with a view to meet the exigency of creation Date: 2022.03.08 10:49:04 IST

of District Level Disease Diagnostice Laboratory and petitioner who was 5th pass was given appointment in terms of letter of sanction issued by the concerned ministry.

It is submitted that since the qualification for Laboratory Attendent in State Level laboratory is 10 th pass, whereas for District Level Laboratory relaxation was granted, therefore there being inter

differentia in the qualification prescribed for post at District Level and State Level, petitioner is not entitled to the pay scale of Rs.139-200, which is meant for Laboratory Attendent for Biological Products, Mhow (State Level Lab).

Learned counsel for the petitioner is not in a position to dispute a fact that his initial appointment was made at Tikamgarh in basic pay scale of Rs.125-2-145-2.5-150 per month. It is mentioned in the appointment order itself that appointment is made as per attached service condition from the date of his joining at Rog Anushandan Prayogshala, Tikamgarh (Annexure P-1), thus it is evident that petitioner having joined his service as Laboratory Attendentat Rog Anushandan Prayogshala, Tikamgarh in the pay scale of Rs.125-150 in pursuant to the order of creation of those 10 posts at different places, in terms of the order dated 23/30-01-1979 cannot claim higher pay scale without demonstrating before the court that petitioner possessed necessary qualification prescribed for Laboratory Attendent in the pay scale of Rs.139-200.

In case of V. Markendeya & Ors vs State Of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1989 SC 1308 , it is held that classification based on educational qualification is not violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

In case of State Of Mysore & Anr vs P. Narasing Rao, AIR 1968 SC 349 it is held that government can create a higher scale of pay on the basis of educational qualifications even though there was some equation in techanical proficiency between those in the higher scale and those in the lower.

In case of Gabriel Saver Fernandes & others Vs. State of Karnataka, 1995 Supp(1) SCC 149, it is held that classification between qualified and unqualified persons for giving them different pay scales is just.

In case of State of Rajasthan Vs. Gopi Kishan Sen, 1993 Supp (1) SCC 522, the Supreme Court has upheld granting of different pay scales to trained and untrained teachers doing identical duties on the basis of different educational qualifications.

When tested on touchstone of above judgments and the factual matrix obtaining in the case.Thus, no fault can be attributed in creation of posts of Lab Attendent, in different pay scales on the basis of different educational qualifications prescribed. Therefore, petition fails and is dismissed.

(VIVEK AGARWAL) JUDGE tarun