Narayani vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 6122 MP

                               1
 IN    THE      HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                      AT GWALIOR
                         BEFORE
       HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
                    ON THE 17 th OF APRIL, 2023
                  WRIT PETITION No. 1929 of 2023

BETWEEN:-
NARAYANI W/O LATE SHRI JAGRAM, AGED ABOUT 67
Y E A R S , OCCUPATION: HOUSE WIFE R/o VILL
MEHGAOON THASIL CHINOR (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                        .....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI SHYAM SHARMA - ADVOCATE)

AND
1.    THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL
      SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF PWD DEPTT.
      VALLABH BHAWAN BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

2.    ENGINEER IN CHIEF,          PUBLIC WORKS
      D EPA R T M E N T, SATPURA BHAWAN BHOPAL
      (MADHYA PRADESH)

3.    CHIEF ENGINEER PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
      GWALIOR    DIVISION  GWALIOR   (MADHYA
      PRADESH)

4.    EXECUTIVE    ENGINEER    PUBLIC   WORKS
      D EPARTM EN T DIVISION NO. 2    GWALIOR,
      (MADHYA PRADESH)

5.    ASSISTANT  ENGINEER     PUBLIC  WORKS
      DEPARTM ENT SUB DIVISION CHINOR DISTT.
      GWALIOR (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                      .....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI S.S.KUSHWAH - GOVT. ADVOCATE)

      This petition coming on for HEARING this day, the court passed the
following:
                                ORDER

The present petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution prays for the following reliefs:-

(i) That, the respondents may kindly be directed to consider the claim of the petitioners in the light of Hon'ble Apex Court decision Ram Naresh Rawat Vs. Ashwani Ray & Others reported in (2017) 3 SCC 436

(ii) That, any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper may also be given to the petitioner alongwith costs.

It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that late husband of the

petitioner was employed as daily wages as labour in the respondents department. He was classified as permanent employee on the post of labour vide Annexure P/1. It is further submitted that he had been declared as Sthaikarmi. However, in the light of judgment passed by Supreme Court in the 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 husband of the petitioner was entitled for the minimum of regular pay scale without increment for the aforementioned period.

Per contra, it is submitted by the counsel for the State that husband of t h e petitioner is entitled for the minimum of the regular pay scale without increment from the date of his classification only.

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

The husband of the petitioner was classified by order Annexure P/1. Accordingly, if the classification is intact and if the petitioner files a

representation before the authorities for grant of minimum pay scale from the date of classification till the benefit of Sthaikarmi is given to husband of the petitioner, 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).

With the aforesaid direction, the petition is finally disposed of.

(MILIND RAMESH PHADKE) JUDGE Rks

RAM KUMAR SHARMA 2023.04.18 11:20:13 +05'30'