Devendra Kuma Jangre vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 13111 MP

                            1               WP No.20043/2023


IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
            AT JABALPUR
                        BEFORE
     HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GURPAL SINGH AHLUWALIA
               ON THE 11th OF AUGUST, 2023
              WRIT PETITION No. 20043 of 2023
BETWEEN:-

1.    DEVENDRA    KUMA     JANGRE   S/O   SHRI
      BHUPENDRA KUMAR JANGRE, AGED ABOUT 43
      YEARS, OCCUPATION: DAILY RATED EMPLOYEE
      R/O NAGAR PALIKA SEONI MALWA DISTRICT
      HOSHANGABAD (MADHYA PRADESH)



2.    SANTOSH KUMAR BATHAV S/O SHRI GANESH
      PRASAD BATHAV, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
      OCCUPATION: DAILY RATED EMPLOYEE NAGAR
      PALIKA    SEONI     MALWA      DISTRICT
      HOSHANGABAD (MADHYA PRADESH)



                                            .....PETITIONERS
(BY SHRI DEV SHARMA - ADVOCATE)

AND

1.    STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH THE
      CHIEF SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF URBAN
      ADMINISTRATION    AND    DEVELOPMENT
      VALLABH    BHAWAN   BHOPAL   (MADHYA
      PRADESH)



2.    THE COMMISSIONER URBAN ADMINISTRATION
      AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT BHOPAL
      DISTRICT BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)



3.    THE COMMISSIONER (TREASURY ACCOUNT AND
      PENSION) BHOPAL DISTRICT BHOPAL (MADHYA
                                        2                   WP No.20043/2023


     PRADESH)



4.   THE COLLECTOR SEONI MALWA                    DISTRICT
     HOSHANGABAD (MADHYA PRADESH)



5.   CHIEF MUNICIPAL OFFICER SEONI MALWA
     DISTRICT HOSHANGABAD (MADHYA PRADESH)



                                                          .....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI MOHAN SAUSARKAR - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)
      This petition coming on for admission this day, the court passed the

following:

                                  ORDER

This petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India has been filed seeking the following reliefs:

"7.1. That, to grant a writ of certiorari with respect to the petitioner's case in substitution for the Supreme Court's judgment in the Contempt Petition, Civil No. 771/2015 arising from Special Leave Petition No. 25284/2012 (Ann.P/3) and order the provision of regular pay and salary, retroactive to the date of appointment (Ann. P/2), together with all attendant benefits.

7.2. That, to issue a directive to the respondents to review the petitioner's representation and provide the regular pay scale, along with all associated benefits and outstanding salary arrears."

2. It is submitted by counsel for petitioners that petitioner No.1 was appointed as Daily Rated Employee on 01.02.2013 whereas petitioner No.2 was employed as Daily Rated Employee on 16.07.2007 respectively. They are entitled for minimum of pay scale as held by Supreme Court in

case of Ram Naresh Rawat Vs. Ashwini Ray reported in 2017 (3) SCC 436. It is further submitted that even otherwise petitioners are entitled for status of Sthai Karmi as per Viniyamitikaran Scheme dated 07.10.2016.

3. Per contra, petition is vehemently opposed by counsel for State. It is submitted that it is not the case of petitioners that they were ever classified. So far as Viniyamitikaran Scheme of 2016 is concerned, it is clear from clause 1.8 of Scheme that only those Daily Wagers were entitled for benefit of said scheme, who were appointed prior to 16.05.2007 and were in service on 01.09.2016. It is further submitted that those Daily Wagers, who were employed after 16.05.2007 with the approval of State Government are also entitled for benefit of Vinimiyatikaran Scheme but none of the petitioners were appointed prior to 16.05.2007 and even their appointment was not after due approval by State Government.

4. Heard learned counsel for parties.

5. Clause 1.8 of Viniyamitikaran Scheme dated 07.10.2016 reads as under:

"1-8 ,sls nSfud osru Hkksxh tks fnukad 16 ebZ] 2007 dks dk;Zjr Fks] o fnukad 01 flrEcj] 2016 dks Hkh dk;Zjr gS] bl osru dze ,oa vU; ykHkksa ds fy, ik= gksx a As fnukad 16 ebZ 2007 ds Ik'pkr 'kklu dh vuqefr@vuqeksnu mijkUr l{ke vf/kdkjh }kjk nSfud osru Hkskxh ds in ij fu;qDr fd;s x;s gSa mUgsa Hkh ;kstuk dh ik=rk gksxhA fnukad 01 flrEcj] 2016 ds iwoZ lsokfuo`Rr@lsok ls i`Fkd fd;s x;s vFkok lsok NksM pqds nSfud osru Hkksfx;ksa dks bl ;kstuk dh ik=rk ugha gksxhA lafonk] va'kdkyhu ,oa vkmVlkslZ ds ek/;e ls fu;qDr deZpkfj;ksa ds fy, ;g ;kstuk ykxw ugha gSA"

7. From plain reading of this circular, it is clear that only two categories of Daily Wagers are entitled for benefit of Scheme i.e.

(i) Those who were appointed prior to 16.05.2007 and were still in service from 01.09.2016.

(ii) Those who were appointed subsequent to 16.05.2007 with approval of State Government.

8. Admittedly, none of the petitioners falls in any of the above mentioned two categories, therefore, they are not entitled for benefit of Viniyamitikaran Scheme dated 07.10.2016.

7. So far as grant of minimum pay scale without increment as held by Supreme Court in the case of Ramnaresh Rawat (supra) is concerned, admittedly petitioners are not classified employees.

8. Considering totality of facts and circumstances of the case, no case is made out warranting interference.

9. Petition fails and is hereby dismissed.

(G.S. AHLUWALIA) JUDGE vc

VARSHA CHOURASIYA 2023.08.11 18:55:50 +05'30'