Madhya Pradesh High Court
Balkrishna Jatav vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 17 August, 2023
Author: Anand Pathak
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND PATHAK
ON THE 17 th OF AUGUST, 2023
WRIT PETITION No. 1022 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
BALKRISHNA JATAV S/O SHRI CHAUHAN SINGH, AGED
ABOUT 51 YEARS, OCCUPATION: TIME KEEPER/ STHAL
SAHAYAK W.R.D. DIVISION GUNA JAL SANSADHAN
COLONY 4 GUNA (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI ALOK BANDHU SHRIVASTAVA- ADVOATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, WATER RESOURCE
DEPARTMENT, MATNRALAYA VALLABH
BHAWAN BHOPAL (M.P.) (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. ENGINEER IN CHIEF WATER RESOURCE
DEPARTMENT BHOPAL , (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. CHIEF ENGINEER WATER RESOURCE
D EPARTM EN T DIVISION CHAMBAL BETWA
KACHAR BHOPAL M.P. (MADHYA PRADESH)
4. SUPERINTENDENT ENGINEER, WATER
RESOURCE DEPARTMENT DIVISION GUNA
(MADHYA PRADESH)
5. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER WATER RESOURCE
D E PA R T M E N T DIVISION GUNA (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI G.K. AGRAWAL- GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR
RESPONDENT/STATE)
This petition coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
following:
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VISHAL
UPADHYAY
Signing time: 8/18/2023
6:44:48 PM
2
ORDER
The present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
has been filed seeking following reliefs:-
"(i) Kindly quashed order Annexure P/1, Direct the
respondents to extend all service benefits of equal
pay scale from the date when it was given to
similarly situated employee, working under same
empl oyer Department/State Govt of M.P.. and
comply with direction of Honable High Court as has
been given in P/2 to P/6.
(2) Direct the respondents to recall/reject the order
annexure P/1 and consider/comply with direction of
of Honble High Court order annexure P/2. Extend
benefits of pay scale/revised pay scale and arrear
amount with interest from the date when given to
others similar employee
(3) Direct the respondents to recall/reject the order
aneexure P/1 and consider the representation in the
light of the High Court order annexure P/7. Extend
benefits of pay scale/revised pay scale and arrear
amount with interest from the date when given to
others similar employee.
(4) That any other relief which this Hon'ble Court
deem fit in the fact circumstances of the present.
Brief facts of the case are that the petitioners were appointed on the post
of Timekeeper in Work-Charge Establishment under Water Resources
Department. Services of the petitioners are governed by M.P. Work Charge and
contingency paid employee rules. Petitioners have claimed extension of benefit
of pay scale and its revision from time to time as has been extended in
W.P.No.16054/2003 to similarly placed employees. The petitioners were Work
Charge Time Keepers in W.P.No.16045/2003 and W.P. No.16741/2003
whereas in another matter i.e. W.P. No.13540/2010 petitioners were Progress
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VISHAL
UPADHYAY
Signing time: 8/18/2023
6:44:48 PM
Men, and this Court followed the principles laid down in aforesaid both the
cases. This is equally admitted that the writ appeal filed against the order passed
by this Court in both the cases i.e. A.L. Thakur and R.K. Lakhera (supra)
were dismissed by the Division Bench. The review petition filed by the
department in A.L. Thakur was also dismissed by the Division Bench. The SLP
filed against the order of this Court in the case of R.K. Lakhera was also
dismissed by the Supreme Court. For claiming the same benefit of pay scale the
present petitioners also filed writ petition i.e. W.P. No.14363/2021 which was
disposed of by orders dated 21.03.2022 directing the petitioners to prefer
representation and the respondents were directed to decide petitioners' claim in
the light of A.L. Thakur's case. In compliance of the said order, petitioners
filed representation but the same was not decided. Thereafter, petitioners No.2
and 3 filed contempt petition wherein compliance report was filed by the
respondents stating that representation was decided and claim for similar pay
scale was rejected, accordingly the contempt petition got disposed off. Hence,
this petition, challenging the rejection of representation, had been filed.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that rejection of petitioners'
representation is illegal, arbitrary and discriminatory. After judicial scrutiny of
the case, this Court has held that Time Keepers/File Assistant/Sthal Sahayak
working under Work Charge Establishment of the department are eligible and
entitled to get the benefit of equal pay for equal work like regular employees of
department but inspite of lapse of years non compliance of orders is willful and
intentional disobedience of the order of this Court. Even after serving several
years in the department nothing is given to petitioners. Thus, action of the
respondents is illegal and arbitrary.
Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VISHAL
UPADHYAY
Signing time: 8/18/2023
6:44:48 PM
respondents in compliance of the order passed by this Court in W.P.
No.14363/2021 on dated 21.03.2022, re-examined the case of the petitioners
and it is held that the petitioners are not entitled to get the benefits of pay scale
515-800 being petitioners are 'Time Keeper', the petitioners have not chosen to
challenge said order before any Court, Tribunal or authority, therefore, the said
order attended finality and the petitioners by suppressing this aspect, filed this
petition for seeking relief to extend the benefit of pay scale 515-800. Hence, the
instant petition filed by the petitioners is misconceived and not tenable in the
eyes of law and deserves to be dismissed.
It was further argued that the case of Lakshmi Narayan Upadhayay on
which reliance was placed in A.L. Thakur's case, was set aside by this Court
and as this fact could not be brought before the this Court and Hon'b le
Supreme Court, while challenging the order passed in A.L. Thakur's case
before the said forums, it is of no consequence and no benefit of it could be
extracted by the Petitioner from the said judgment.
Further it was argued that the pay scale demanded by the Petitioner of 515-
800 was of Amin, having altogether different work profile to that of Timekeeper,
the post on which the Petitioners are working and are in the bracket of pay
scale of 445-635, cannot claim any parity with them and the said benefit cannot
be extended to them, thus, it was prayed that the Petition being devoid of any
substance deserves to be dismissed.
Heard the Counsel for the parties and perused the record.
The first objection taken by the State with regard to relief of quashment
of order dated 15/12/2022, whereby representation of the Petitioners were
rejected, not sought is concerned, which appears to be totally misconceived, as
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VISHAL
UPADHYAY
Signing time: 8/18/2023
6:44:48 PM
relief 7 (2) of the Petitioner relates to for recalling of the aforesaid orders and
extending benefit of pay scale/revised pay scale and arrears with interest from
the date it was given to other similar employee's.
The second prominent objection taken on behalf of the State is that the
decision of Lakshmi Narayan Upadhayay, on which reliance was place while
deciding A.L. Thakur's case (supra), was set aside by this Court and therefore
the benefit of Judgment of A.L. Thakur (supra) cannot be extended to the
Petitioners, has also no force, as coordinate bench of this Court in the matter of
Lekh Singh Yadav Vs. State of M.P. passed in W.P. 4413/2018 on 25/09/2018,
had considered this aspect and had negatived this very contention and while
reiterating the binding effect of the decision of A.L. Thakur (supra) directed to
extend the benefit of pay scale as granted in the matter of A.L. Thakur (supra).
Further, in a Review Petition No. 282/2020. Filed for reviewing the order
dated 25/09/2018 passed in W.P. 4413/2018 in the matter of Lekh Singh Yadav
Vs. State, this aspect as to whether the Petitioners therein would be entitled to
claim the benefit of similar pay scale of Amin, when the nature of both the jobs
are altogether different and emphasizing the binding effect of a decision
rendered by a Division Bench of this Court on the matter of State of M.P. Vs.
R.K. Lakhera passed in W.A. No.478/2013, wherein it was summed up that
even if there was a cleavage of opinion between two Division Bench decisions
i.e. in Kiran Rangnekar (supra) and A.L. Thakur (supra), both the judgments
were considered by a subsequent Division Bench in the matter of R.K. Lakhera
(supra) and after considering previous judgments, it was opined that the
observations in Kiran Rangnekar is of no avail to distinguish A.L. Thakur's
order.
Thus, when the controversy in the matter of A.L. Thakur (supra) had
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VISHAL
UPADHYAY
Signing time: 8/18/2023
6:44:48 PM
been put to rest till Hon'ble Supreme Court, there is no reason to take a
different view in the matter.
Accordingly, the Petition succeeds and is hereby allowed. The orders
dated 15.12.2022 is hereby set aside. The respondents are directed to provide
similar benefit of pay scale i.e. 3050-4590 to the Petitioners from the due date,
with all benefits which were given to A.L. Thakur (supra). This order shall be
carried out within a period of 2 months from receiving certified copy of this
order.
(ANAND PATHAK)
JUDGE
Vishal
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VISHAL
UPADHYAY
Signing time: 8/18/2023
6:44:48 PM
