Deceased Shri Ramesh Mankar ... vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2022 Latest Caselaw 7148 MP

                                  1

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                       AT INDORE
                              BEFORE
              HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRANAY VERMA

                      ON THE 11th OF MAY, 2022

                 WRIT PETITION No.11121 of 2022

     Between:-
     DECEASED SHRI RAMESH MANKAR
     (ADDITIONAL PROGRAM OFFICER ZILA PANCHAYAT DHAR)
     THROUGH LR.S. SMT. MRANALINI MANKAR W/O LATE SHRI
     RAMESH MANKAR, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
     RTD. EMPLOYEE OF STATE BANK OF INDIA 175, SILVER HILLS
     COLONY, DHAR (MADHYA PRADESH)
                                                   .....PETITIONER
     (BY SHRI K.L. PUROHIT, ADVOCATE)

     AND

   THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH PRINCIPAL
1.
   SECRETARY VALLABH BHAWAN BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
   COMMISSIONER MADHYA PRADESH RAJYA ROJAGAR
2. GUARANTY PARISHAD 59 SECOND FLOOR C BLOCK
   NARMADA BHAWAN ARERA HILLS (MADHYA PRADESH)
   CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER ZILA PANCHAYAT DHAR
3.
   (MADHYA PRADESH)
                                                 .....RESPONDENTS
     (BY SHRI P. KIBE, PANEL LAWYER)

        This petition coming on for admission this day, the Court

passed the following:

                             ORDER

01. This Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking a direction to the respondents to grant the benefit of the Fifth & Sixth

Pay Commission and also the dearness allowance in the light of the decided matters.

02. The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as Extension Officer originally in MP Seed Oil Federation and the services of the petitioner were taken on deputation at Jilla Panchayat, Jhabua by order of the State Government. The petitioner is working under the State Government and, therefore, now he is entitled for the grant of benefit of Fifth and Sixth Pay Commission. When the matter is taken up today learned counsel for petitioner has submitted that the issue involved in the present matter was decided by the Single Judge in WP No.5680/2009(s) by order dated 23/3/2011 in the matter of Dinkar Pratap Singh Chauhan and others Vs. State of MP and others which was affirmed in appeal in WA No.361/2011 in the matter of State of MP and others Vs. Dinkar Pratap Singh Chauhan and others by order dated 27/7/2011 and against the said order the SLP(Civil) No.31673/2011 was dismissed by order dated 15/4/2013. He has prayed for consideration of the petitioner's claim in the light of the order passed in the matter of Dinkar Pratap Singh Chauhan (supra). The Division Bench of this Court by order dated 27/7/2011 while deciding the WA No.361/2011 had held as under :-

"4. From the facts of the case, it is clear that the respondents - employees were sent on deputation on the terms and conditions fixed by the Government. Subsequently, the General Administration Department clarified that the respondents - employee shall be entitled the D.A and other allowances at part with the

Government employees. The Government also sanctioned the posts against which respondents - employees are working. It is also a fact that the appellant - department, M.P State Cooperative Oil Seed Growers Federation, has become defunct and there is no possibility to send the respondents - employees back to their parent department. Virtually, the respondents - employees have been absorbed in their present post of deputation. In such circumstances, the direction issued by the learned Single Judge that the respondents - employees are entitled the benefits of 5th and 6th Pay Commission's recommendations is in accordance with law.

5. Learned Government Advocate, appearing on behalf of the appellants/State, has submitted that the respondents - employees are entitled salary as per the salary they were receiving in their parent department. In support of his contention learned Government Advocate relied on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of State of M.P and others v. Vinod Mohan Shrivastava, ILR (2008) MP 1869. However, the aforesaid argument cannot be accepted because the respondents - employee were sent on deputation as per the terms and conditions fixed by the Government. Apart from this, there is no more the parent department of the respondents - employees and the parent department has become defunct. Hence, the respondents - employees are working under the control of the State Government. Hence, they are entitled for the same benefits.

6. Consequently, we do not find any merit in this appeal. It is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs".

03. Since the stand of the petitioner is that his claim stands on the identical footing and the issue has already been decided by the Division Bench of this Court, therefore, the present writ petition is

disposed of by directing the competent officer of the State to decide the petitioner's claim in respect of the grant of benefit of Fifth and Sixth Pay Commission and dearness allowance in the light of the order passed in the matter of Dinkar Pratap Singh Chauhan (supra) within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

Certified copy as per rules.

                                             (Pranay Verma)
Aiyer*                                            Judge
Digitally signed by
JAGDISHAN AIYER
Date: 2022.05.12
11:17:59 +05'30'