Madhya Pradesh High Court
Mohan Lal Patel vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 26 September, 2022
Author: Nandita Dubey
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE NANDITA DUBEY
ON THE 26th OF SEPTEMBER, 2022
WRIT PETITION No. 20274 of 2022
BETWEEN:-
MOHAN LAL PATEL, S/O LATE SHRI
RAMCHARAN PATEL, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: RETIRED SUB INSPECTOR FROM
THE OFFICE OF SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
RAILWAY JAHANGIRABAD, BHOPAL, R/O
VILLAGE JOHARIYA, TAHSIL KARELI,
DISTRICT NARSINGHPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI MANOJ CHANSAURIAY, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HOME
DEPARTMENT, MINISTRY, VALLABH BHAWAN,
BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, POLICE
HEADQUARTERS, BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE (RAILWAY),
POLICE HEADQUARTERS G.R.P., BHADBHADA,
BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
4. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (RAILWAY),
JAHANGIRABAD, BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
5. DIVISIONAL JOINT DIRECTOR/PENSION
OFFICER, ACCOUNT, TREASURY AND PENSION,
SATPUDA BHAWAN, BHOPAL (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI ALOK AGNIHOTRI DEPUTY GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)
Th is petition coming on for hearing this day, th e court passed the
following:
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SHARAN JEET
KAUR JASSAL
Signing time: 9/26/2022
6:18:48 PM
2
ORDER
The petitioner before this Court, who is serving on the post of Inspector,
has filed the present petition challenging paragraph 3 of clarification 13/11/2009
dis-entitling the petitioners to have the benefits of second time pay-scale on
completion of 20 years of service.
Learned counsel for the petitioner at the outset has drawn attention of this
Court towards the judgment delivered in the case of H.P. Parashar vs. State of
M.P. and others W.P. No.13556/2014 and his contention is that this Court
has already decided the controversy involved in the present case, and therefore,
the present petition also deserves to be allowed.
The judgment delivered in the case of H.P. Parashar (supra) in para 8
to 12 reads as under:-
8. The Supreme Court further in the case of Union of India and
others vs. Atul Shukla and others reported in (2014) 10 SCC 432 has held
that so long as the two employees are a part of the same cadre/rank, they
cannot be treated differently either for the purpose of pay and allowances
or other conditions of service including the age of superannuation. In the
aforesaid judgment, the Supreme Court has considered various earlier
judgments of the apex Court including the case of The Sate of West
Bangal vs. Anwar Ali Sarkar and another reported in AIR (39) 1952 SC
75. The Court held as under:- A long line of decisions of this Court that
have explained the meaning of equality guaranteed by Articles 14 and 16
of the Constitution and laid down tests for determining the constitutional
validity of a classification in a given case immediately assume
importance. These pronouncements have by now authoritatively settled
that Article 14 prohibits class legislation and not reasonable
classification. Decisions starting with State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali
(AIR 1952 SC 75) down to the very recent pronouncement of this Court in
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SHARAN JEET
KAUR JASSAL
Signing time: 9/26/2022
6:18:48 PM
Dr. Subramanian Swamy v. Director, CBI and Anr. (AIR 2014 SC 2140)
have extensively examined and elaborately explained that a classification
passes the test of Article 14 only if (i) there is an intelligible differentia
between those grouped together and others who are kept out of the
group; and (ii) There exists a nexus between the differentia and the object
of the legislation.
9. From the aforesaid judgments of the apex Court the principle
of law is clear that the employees who are part of the same cadre and
rank, they cannot be treated differently for the purpose of pay and
allowances. In the present case, the petitioner has been differentiated in
regard to grant of second time scale pay on the ground that he was
promoted second time on a post which was 100% promotional post. The
petitioner has specifically pleaded that due to aforesaid differentiation,
his juniors who were recruited in the year 2002 were getting higher pay in
comparison to the present petitioner.
10. The petitioner has also filed the noting of the Department in
regard to grant of time scale pay to the employees. The Director in his
noting has clearly mentioned that the junior employees were getting
higher pay in comparison to the Senior employees. The Additional Chief
Secretary of Department in her nothing dated 20.02.2013 has opined that
due to anomaly in regard to grant of second time scale 161 junior
Officers were getting higher pay scale and salary in comparison to Senior
Officers. The object of the Scheme in regard to grant of time Scale which
was introduced vide Circular dated 24.1.2008 was to grant benefit of
Time Scale of pay to the members of State Civil Services for the purpose
of advancement of their career. It is mentioned in the Scheme that A and
B grade employees of Civil Services would be eligible to get the benefit
after 8 years of their appointment and Class-III employees shall be
eligible to get the benefit after 10 years of completing the service. There
is no mention in the Scheme that the benefit of Second Time Scale Pay
would not be made applicable to those employees who have been
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SHARAN JEET
KAUR JASSAL
Signing time: 9/26/2022
6:18:48 PM
promoted on a 100% promotional post. The aforesaid provision has been
introduced by way of clarification. In the aforesaid circular no reasons
has been assigned for discrimination. It is contrary to the principle of law
laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and others
vs. Atul Shukla and others quoted above that if two employees are part of
the same cadre and rank, they cannot be treated differently for the
purpose of pay and allowances. Article 14 of the Constitution of India
forbids class legislation.
11. In my opinion, by the act of clarification, the Finance
Department has created two class of employees i.e. one class who are
eligible to get benefit of second time scale pay, if they are promoted on a
post which is partially by direct recruitment and partially by promotion
and IInd class of employees who are promoted on a post which is 100%
promotional post. It has created class within the class and due to the
aforesaid anomaly the juniors were getting higher pay scale in
comparison to the Seniors. The act is arbitrary, illegal and violative of
Article 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India.
12. Consequently, the petition of the petitioner is allowed. The
respondents are directed to grant the benefit of second time scale pay to
the petitioner ignoring the fact that he was promoted on a post which was
100% promotional post in accordance with the Scheme of Time Scale of
Pay 24.01.2008 (Annexure-P-1). If the case of the petitioner has not been
considered, the same shall be considered in accordance with the Scheme
and if the petitioner is found eligible, then the benefit be granted to him
from the date of his entitlement in accordance with the Scheme. The
arrears be also paid to the petitioner and his pay be fixed accordingly.
The petitioner has been retired, his retiral benefits i.e. pension and
Gratuity etc., be calculated accordingly within a period of three months
from the date of receipt of the copy of the order. No order as to the costs.
Signature Not Verified
The petitioner is identically placed employee and therefore, once the relief
Signed by: SHARAN JEET
KAUR JASSAL
Signing time: 9/26/2022
6:18:48 PM
has been granted to identically placed employee by this Court, the petitioner is
also entitled for the same relief.
Resultantly, the writ petition stands allowed and the respondents are
directed to return the benefit earlier granted to the petitioner which was taken
back by Annexure-P/9 and P/10 dated 08.02.2022 and 25.03.2022 respectively,
ignoring the fact that the petitioner was promoted on the post, which was 100%
promotional post in accordance with scheme of time scale of pay dated
24/01/2008. In case the petitioner has not been considered so far, he shall be
considered in accordance with the scheme and if found eligible, he shall be
entitled for all consequential benefits including arrears of pay etc. The exercise
of granting the benefit as directed by this Court be concluded within a period of
three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
With the aforesaid the petition stands disposed of.
(NANDITA DUBEY)
JUDGE
sjk
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SHARAN JEET
KAUR JASSAL
Signing time: 9/26/2022
6:18:48 PM
