Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rakesh Rajput vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 13 September, 2022
Author: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
1 of 5
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GURPAL SINGH AHLUWALIA
ON THE 13th OF SEPTEMBER, 2022
WRIT PETITION No. 18550 of 2022
BETWEEN:-
1. RAKESH RAJPUT S/O SHRI DWARIKA PRASAD,
AGE- 59 YEARS, OCCUPATION- SERVICE, R/O-
JAL SANSADHAN VIBHAG, UP-SAMBHAG
CHANDERI DISTRICT ASHOKNAGAR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
2. BHAGIRATH S/O SHRI SABDAL SINGH LODHI,
AGE- 60 YEARS, OCCUPATION- SERVICE, R/O-
JAL SANSADHAN VIBHAG, UP-SAMBHAG
CHANDERI DISTRICT ASHOKNAGAR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
3. BHAIYYALAL S/O SHRI ARJAN SINGH PARIHAR,
AGE- 60 YEARS, OCCUPATION- SERVICE, R/O-
JAL SANSADHAN VIBHAG, UP-SAMBHAG
CHANDERI DISTRICT ASHOKNAGAR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
4. CHHOTELAL S/O SHRI HARIRAM RAIKWAR,
AGE-58 YEARS, OCCUPATION- SERVICE, R/O-
JAL SANSADHAN VIBHAG, UP-SAMBHAG
CHANDERI DISTRICT ASHOKNAGAR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
5. JANKI S/O SHRI PHULLU RAIKWAR, AGE - 66
YEARS, OCCUPATION- RETIRED, JAL
SANSADHAN VIBHAG, UP-SAMBHAG CHANDERI
DISTRICT ASHOKNAGAR, R/O- CHANDERI
DISTRICT ASHOKNAGAR (MADHYA PRADESH)
6. VAHEED KHAN S/O SHRI ROSHAN KHAN, AGE-
66 YEARS, OCCUPATION- RETIRED, JAL
SANSADHAN VIBHAG, UP-SAMBHAG CHANDERI
DISTRICT ASHOKNAGAR, R/O- CHANDERI
DISTRICT ASHOKNAGAR (MADHYA PRADESH)
7. JAMNALAL AHIRWAR S/O SHRI PARMAL SINGH,
AGE-53 YEARS, OCCUPATION- SERVICE, R/O-
JAL SANSADHAN VIBHAG, UP-SAMBHAG
ASHOKNAGAR DISTRICT ASHOKNAGAR
2 of 5
(MADHYA PRADESH)
8. SURESH S/O SHRI GANESHRAM KEVAT, AGE-52
YEARS, OCCUPATION- SERVICE, R/O- JAL
SANSADHAN VIBHAG, UP-SAMBHAG
ASHOKNAGAR DISTRICT ASHOKNAGAR
(MADHYA PRADESH)
9. MUNESH SINGH S/O SHRI BABUSINGH
RAGHUVANSHI, AGE- 53 YEARS, OCCUPATION-
SERVICE, R/O- JAL SANSADHAN VIBHAG,
UP-SAMBHAG ASHOKNAGAR DISTRICT
ASHOKNAGAR (MADHYA PRADESH)
10. KAMAL SINGH S/O SHRI KASHIRAM KATARIYA,
AGE- 62 YEARS, OCCUPATION- RETIRED, JAL
SANSADHAN VIBHAG, UP-SAMBHAG
MUNGAWALI DISTRICT ASHOKNAGAR, R/O-
MUNGAWALI DISTRICT ASHOKNAGAR
(MADHYA PRADESH)
11. RAJKUMAR MER S/O SHRI MOOLCHAND MER,
AGE- 51 YEARS, OCCUPATION- SERVICE, R/O-
JAL SANSADHAN VIBHAG, UP-SAMBHAG
ASHOKNAGAR DISTRICT ASHOKNAGAR
(MADHYA PRADESH)
12. SANNU ADIWASI S/O SHRI PAMPU ADIWASI,
AGE- 61 YEARS, OCCUPATION- SERVICE, R/O-
JAL SANSADHAN VIBHAG, UP-SAMBHAG
MUNGAWALI DISTRICT ASHOKNAGAR
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONERS
(BY SHRI K.K.SHRIVASTAVA- ADVOCATE)
AND
1. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH, THROUGH-
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, JAL SANSADHAN
VIBHAG, MANTRALAYA, VALLABH BHAWAN
BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. PRAMUKH ABHIYANTA, JAL SANSADHAN
VIBHAG, NARMADA BHAWAN, TULSI NAGAR
BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. MUKHYA ABHIYANTA, JAL SANSADHAN
VIBHAG, CHAMBAL BETWA KACCHAR BHOPAL
(MADHYA PRADESH)
3 of 5
4. ADHIKSHAN YANTRI, JAL SANSADHAN VIBHAG
MANDAL GUNA DISTRICT GUNA (MADHYA
PRADESH)
5. KARYAPALAN YANTRI, JAL SANSADHAN
VIBHAG SAMBHAG ASHOKNAGAR DISTRICT
ASHOKNAGAR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(SHRI A.K.NIRANKARI- GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR THE STATE)
This petition coming on for hearing this day, the court passed the
following:
ORDER
This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed
seeking following reliefs :
¼7-1½ izfr;kfpdkdrkZx.k dks vknsf'[email protected]'kZr fd;k tkos fd ;kfpdkdrkZx.kksa
ds fo:) tkjh vkyksP; vkns'k fnukad 13-05-2022 ¼,usDtj ih&1½ dks fujLr dj
;kfpdkdrkZx.kksa dks oxhZd`r fnukad ls U;wure osrueku ,oa varj dh jkf'k 18 izfr'kr C;kt
lfgr iznku fd;s tkus ds vkns'k ikfjr djsa A
¼7-2½ izfr;kfpdkdrkZx.k dks vknsf'kr fd;k tkos fd ;kfpdkdrkZx.kksa ds
}kjk izLrqr fd;s x;s vkosnu [email protected];kosnu dk fujkdj.k ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; }kjk
izfrikfnr U;k;kn~"Vkar jkeujs'k jkor fo:) v'ouh jk; esa ikfjr vkns'k ds dze esa dj
vyksP; vkns'k fnukad 13-05-2022 ¼,usDtj ih&1½ dks fujLr fd;s tkus ds vkns'k ikfjr djsa
A
¼7-3½ vU; dksbZ vkns'[email protected]'k ekuuh; U;k;ky; tks mfpr le>s tkjh fd;k tkos
A
2. It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioners that petitioners were
initially appointed as daily wages employees in the respondents department.
Thereafter, the petitioners were classified as permanent employees by order dated
12.02.2015. It is further submitted that now they have been declared as
Sthaikarmi. However, in the light of judgment passed by Supreme Court in the
4 of 5
case of Ram Naresh Rawat Vs. Ashwini Ray reported in 2017 (3) SCC 436,
the benefit of minimum of regular pay scale without increment from the date of
classification till extension of benefit of Sthaikarmi has not been paid and
accordingly, it is submitted that the petitioners are entitled for the minimum of
regular pay scale without increment for the aforementioned period. It is further
submitted that grant of minimum of regular pay-scale has been denied on the
ground that the petitioners have been given the benefit of Viniyamatikaran
Scheme.
3. The petitioners have not challenged the Viniyamatikaran Scheme and
their claim is that they are entitled for the benefit of minimum of regular
pay-scale, which accrued to them from the date of order of classification till the
benefit of Viniyamatikaran Scheme was not granted.
4. Per contra, it is submitted by the counsel for the State that the
petitioners are entitled for the minimum of the regular pay scale without
increment from the date of their classification only.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
6. The respondents have denied minimum of pay scale payable to classified
employee in the light of Ram Naresh Rawat (Supra). This stand of the
respondents cannot be approved. The petitioners had worked as classified
employees therefore they are entitled for the salary/emoluments which were
payable. The said salary cannot be taken away by mentioning that "no arrears are
payable". The petitioners were given the benefit of Viniyamitikaran Scheme in the
year 2016 therefore the salary which was payable to them for the work done by
them in the capacity of classified employee cannot be treated as "arrears" as
mentioned in the Scheme.
7. Since, the petitioners have been wrongly denied their legitimate claim
5 of 5
for minimum of pay-scale from the date of order of classification till conferral of
right of Sthaikarmi, therefore, the order dated 13.05.2022 passed by the
respondent No.3 is hereby quashed, so far as it relates to petitioners.
8. The petitioners were classified by orders dated 12.02.2015. Accordingly,
if the classification is intact and if they file a representation before the authorities
for grant of minimum pay scale from 12.02.2015 till the benefit of Sthaikarmi is
given to them, then the said representation shall be decided as early as possible
preferably within a period of one month from the date of representation in the
light of judgment passed in the case of Ram Naresh Rawat (supra).
9. With the aforesaid direction, the petition is finally disposed of.
(G.S. AHLUWALIA)
JUDGE
Aman
AMAN TIWARI
2022.09.15
19:41:10 +05'30'
