Purshottam vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 751 MP

                                1
 IN    THE      HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                      AT GWALIOR
                         BEFORE
       HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
                   ON THE 12 th OF JANUARY, 2023
                  WRIT PETITION No. 28866 of 2022

BETWEEN:-
PURSHOTTAM S/O LATE SHRI MURARI, AGED ABOUT
55 YEARS, OCCUPATION: LABOUR, R/O CIRCUIT HOUSE,
PWD, SHIVPURI (MADHYA PRADESH)

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

AND
1.    STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH, THROUGH
      PRINCIPAL  SECRETARY, PUBLIC WORKS
      DEPARTMENT, VALLABH BHAWAN BHOPAL
      (MADHYA PRADESH)

2.    ENGINEER    IN     CHIEF,  PUBLIC WORKS
      D EPARTM EN T, 27-28 FIRST FLOOR NIRMAN
      BHAWAN, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL (MADHYA
      PRADESH)

3.    CHIEF ENGINEER, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT,
      NORTH ZONES, THATIPUR, GWALIOR (MADHYA
      PRADESH)

4.    EXECUTIVE  ENGINEER,  PUBLIC   WORKS
      DEPARTMEN,T SAMBHAG, GWALIOR (MADHYA
      PRADESH)

                                                        .....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI DEEPAK KHOT - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)

      This petition coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
following:
                                 ORDER

This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been

filed seeking following reliefs:

7 . 1 That, a direction may kindly be given to the respondents to give the service benefit and minimum pay scale of the post of the permanent classified Labour from the date of his classification as permanent employee to the petitioner. And pay the arrears of salary on fixation of pay along with all consequence benefits with interest from the date of his Classification.

7.2 That, the respondents may further be directed to treat the petitioner at par with their similarly placed co- employees with seniority and consequential benefits on the post of Labour from the date of his Classification. 7.3 That, any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper may also be given to the petitioner along with costs.

It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that petitioner was employed on daily wages as Labour in the respondents' department. He was classified as permanent employee on the post of Labour by order dated 09/07/2007. It is further submitted that now he has 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 the petitioner is 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 the 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. T h e petitioner was classified by order dated 09/07/2007. Accordingly, if the classification is intact and if he files a representation before the authorities for grant of minimum pay scale from 09/07/2007 till the benefit of Sthaikarmi is given to him, 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. E-copy/Certified copy as per rules.

(MILIND RAMESH PHADKE) JUDGE Chandni NEETU SHASHANK 2023.01.13 13:04:02 +05'30'