Madhya Pradesh High Court
Brijendra Kumar Chourasiya vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 12 December, 2023
Author: Maninder S. Bhatti
Bench: Maninder S. Bhatti
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANINDER S. BHATTI
ON THE 12 th OF DECEMBER, 2023
WRIT PETITION No. 19659 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
RAVI PRAKASH DIXIT S/O SHRI GOKUL PRASAD DIXIT, AGED
ABOUT 44 YEARS, OCCUPATION: SERVICE WORKING AS
SECTION WRITER IN THE OFFICE OF SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER
JATARA DISTRICT TIKAMGARH WARD NO. 15 JATARA
DISTRICT TIKAMGARH (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI MANOJ KUMAR CHANSURIYA - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH ITS
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT
MINISTRY VALLABH BHAWAN, BHOPAL (MADHYA
PRADESH)
2. COLLECTOR TIKAMGARH DISTRICT TIKAMGARH
TIKAMGARH (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI PRADEEP SINGH - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)
WRIT PETITION No. 19664 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
1. BRIJENDRA KUMAR CHOURASIYA S/O LATE SHRI
VRINDAVAN CHOURASIYA, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: SERVICE WORKING AS SECTION WRITER
IN THE OFFICE OF TAHSILDAR LIDHOURA DISTRICT
TIKAMGARH R/O WARD NO 9 JATARA DISTRICT
TIKAMGARH (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. NASEEM KHAN S/O LATE SHRI BABU KHAN, AGED ABOUT
51 YEARS, OCCUPATION: SERVICE WORKING AS SECTION
WRITER IN THE OFFICE OF TEHSILDAR JATARA DISTRICT
TIKAMGARH R/O BEHIND GALLA MANDI TIKAMGARH
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SAVITRI PATEL
Signing time: 12/14/2023
4:13:33 PM
2
DISTRICT (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. BRIJENDRA KUMAR ARJARIYA S/O LATE SHRI
SHYAMACHARAN ARJARIYA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: SERVICE WORKING AS SECTION WRITER
IN THE OFFICE OF TEHSILDAR PALERA DISTRICT
TIKAMGARH R/O NEAR CHHOTI STAND PALERA
TIKAMGARH DISTRICT (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONERS
(BY SHRI MANOJ KUMAR CHANSURIYA - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH ITS
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT R/O
VALLABH BHAWNA BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. COLLECTOR TIKAMGARH DISTRICT TIKAMGARH
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI PRADEEP SINGH - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)
These petitions coming on for admission this day, the court passed the following:
ORDER
This order shall also govern the disposal of W.P. No.19664/2023. For the sake
of convenience the facts of W.P. No.19659/2023 are being taken note of.
2. This petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India while praying for following reliefs:-
(i) It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a
writ in the nature of mandamus and other appropriate writs by directing the
respondents to grant the benefits of Circular dated 07.10.2016 by classifying the
petitioner as skilled employee in terms of scheme dated 07th October 2016 and
further the respondents be directed to grant the pay scale of Rs.5000-8000/- from the
due date i.e. 01st September 2016 including the benefits of increments, seniority etc.
along with consequential benefits, in the interest of justice.
(ii) Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and
circumstances of the case including cost of the litigation may kindly be awarded in
favour of the petitioner.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the present petitioner who is
working as Section Writer, has filed this petition while seeking benefit of Circular dated
07.10.2016 as regards classifying the services of the employees as "skilled employee". It
is contended by the counsel that the issue is no more res-integra inasmuch as, the Indore
Bench of this Court in W.P.No.12162/2018 (Anis Ahmad Khan vs. State of M.P.)
dated 21.11.2019 has concluded that the Section Writers are deserve to be classified as
"LFkk;h dehZZ" and the order passed by Single Bench of this Court has been affirmed
inasmuch as, Special Leave Petition filed by the State against the order which was passed
originally in Writ Petition and later on in Review Petition, has not been interfered with. It
is contended by the counsel that number of writ petitions have been decided in the light
of the judgment of Anis Ahmad Khan (supra) and the order in those cases have been
brought on record by the petitioner as Annexures P/7 and P/8. It is further contended by
the counsel that few other orders have also been brought on record by the petitioner
along with the rejoinder as Annexures RJ/2, RJ/3 and RJ/4. It is also contended by the
counsel that benefit of Circular dated 07.10.2016 has been extended to Section Writers in
various Districts like Jabalpur, Bhind, Shahdol etc. However, in District Tikamgarh, the
said benefit is not being extended under the garb of stand that the Section Writers do not
belong to category of daily rated employees and thus, they are not entitled for the benefit
of Circular dated 07.10.2016.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that recently, the respondents have
implemented the orders passed by this Court in identical cases and the benefit has been
extended to the employees. It is contended by the counsel that the benefit of Circular
dated 07.10.2016 is to be extended to all Section Writers respective of the facts that in
past, they were extended the said benefit or not. Therefore, counsel submits that the
respondents cannot take recourse to a discriminatory approach inasmuch as, the benefits
have been extended to number of employees. It is also contended by the counsel that the
order dated 07.07.2023 contained in Annexure RJ/12 is a recent order which contains the
details of the other employees.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/State contends that the petitioner
is not entitled for any relief. It is contended by the counsel that in the case of Anis
Ahmad Khan (supra), the State could not file any return and also could not bring all
relevant facts to the notice of this Court and resultantly, the Court while observing that as
despite repeated opportunities, no justification as regards the issuance of Circular dated
03.05.2018 was brought on record by the respondents, proceeded to set aside the
Circular dated 03.05.2018. It is contended by the counsel that the duties which are nature
of appointment of Section Writers are contained in M.P. Jila Karyalaya Karyawahi
Nirdeshika which contain the provisions of employment of Section Writers. The nature
of duties are well detailed in Chapter 16 of the Jila Karyalaya Karyawahi Nirdeshika
reflect that the Section Writers are not engaged in the capacity of daily rated employees.
It is further contended by the counsel that the engagement is based on the need of work
and therefore, the same is like stop-gap arrangement. The said aspect was required to be
brought to the notice of this Court in the case of Anis Ahmad Khan (supra). It is also
contended by the counsel that in the case of Anis Ahmad Khan (supra), the benefit was
already extended to the employee and later on, the same was withdrawn. Therefore, the
Indore Bench of this Court has concluded that the benefit once extended, could not have
been withdrawn subsequently.
6. In the present case, the benefit of Circular dated 07.10.2016 was never extended
to the petitioner, therefore, the petitioner cannot claim parity with the case of Anis Ahmad
Khan (supra). It is also contended by the counsel for the respondent/State that the issue
needs to be decided at the same would open the floodgates of litigations inasmuch as, no
parity can be claimed by the Section Writers with the case of Anis Ahmad Khan (supra).
Thus, counsel submits that the petition filed by the petitioner, deserves to be dismissed.
7. No other point is argued or pressed by both the parties.
8. Heard the rival submissions advanced on behalf of both the parties and perused
the record.
9. It is evident from perusal of record that a Circular dated 03.05.2018 issued by
the Department of Revenue (contained in Annexure P/4) was subject matter of
controversy before the Indore Bench of this Court in the case of Anis Ahmad Khan
(supra). As, on the basis of the said Circular, the status which was conferred upon, in the
case of Anis Ahmad Khan (supra) was sought to be withdrawn, accordingly, the
petitioner therein approached this Court by way of the said petition and despite number
of opportunities, the State did not make any effort to justify the object and reasons
behind the issuance of Circular dated 03.05.2018. Accordingly, the Indore Bench of this
Court quashed the Circular dated 03.05.2018 and also quashed the consequential order
dated 24.05.2018 which was issued in respect of Shri Anis Ahmad Khan only. This
Court further directed the respondents to restore the said benefit.
10. It is undisputed that the order passed by the Indore Bench of this Court in
Anis Ahmad Khan (supra), travelled upto the Apex Court and the Apex Court also
dismissed the Special Leave Petition filed by the respondent/State. A perusal of the order
passed by the Apex Court in Special Leave Petition filed by the respondent/State which
has been brought on record by the petitioner along with the rejoinder as Annexure RJ/6
reflects that the Apex Court has dismissed the appeal finding no merit in the same. It is
also undisputed that other similar cases were also filed and this Court in the light of
judgment of Anis Ahmad Khan (supra) directed the respondents therein to extend the
same benefit to other similarly situated employees and the said orders have been brought
on record by the petitioner as Annexure P/8 along with the rejoinder as well.
11. In view of the aforesaid, at this stage when the order passed by this Court in
the case of Anis Ahmad Khan (supra) has already attained finality after dismissal of
Special Leave Petition by the Apex Court, this Court is not inclined to entertain the stand
of the respondent/State that the Section Writers cannot be treated as daily rated
employees.
12. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that in the light of the judgment
of Anis Ahmad Khan (supra) passed by the Indore Bench of this Court, the present
petitioner is also entitled for the said benefit.
13. Accordingly, the present petition as well as connected petition i.e.
W.P.No.19664/2023 stand allowed. The respondents are directed to extend the benefit
of Circular dated 07.10.2016 to the petitioners while classifying them as "dq'ky LFkk;h dehZZ"
(skilled permanent employee) with the admissible pay scale in terms of the said Circular
dated 07.10.2016.
14. Let the said exercise be carried out within a period of 90 days from the date of
production of certified copy of the order passed today.
(MANINDER S. BHATTI)
JUDGE
sp
