Tularam Rajak vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 10833 MP

                         1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
             AT GWALIOR
                     BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
             ON THE 13th OF JULY, 2023

         WRIT PETITION NO. 15679 of 2023

BETWEEN:-

TULARAM    RAJAK   S/O  LATE   SHRI
CHOKHELAL RAJAK, AGED 65 YEARS,
OCCUPATION : SERVICE, E-15, GAYATRI
VIHAR, THATIPUR, GWALIOR    (MADHYA
PRADESH)


                                          .....PETITIONER

(BY SHRI NIRMAL SHARMA - ADVOCATE)

AND

1.    STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
      THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
      DEPARTMENT OF WATER
      RESOURCES, VALLABH BHAWAN,
      BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

2.    ENGINEER IN CHIEF, WATER
      RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, BHOPAL
      (MADHYA PRADESH)

3.    EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRIC
      ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT, HEAVY
      MACHINERY, WATER RESOURCES
      DEPARTMENT, THATIPUR GWALIOR
      (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                         .....RESPONDENTS

(BY SHRI PAWAN SINGH RAGHUVANSHI -
GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)
                                             2

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

       This petition coming on for admission this day, the Court passed

the following:

                                       ORDER

By this petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:-

"i- That respondents may kindly be directed to release benefit of I, II and III time pay scale to the petitioner from the due date i.e., completion of 10, 20 and 30 years in service respectively. ii- That, Respondents may kindly be further directed to release aforesaid benefit along with the interest to the tune of 9% PA from due date to actual date of realization.

iii- That cost of the litigation to the tune of Rs.25,000/- be also directed to be paid. iv- Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case may also kindly be granted."

2. At the outset, learned counsel for petitioner referred the judgment of this Court passed in Tejulal Yadav v. State of M.P. and others reported in ILR (2009) M.P. 1326 decided on 23.1.2009 and seeks parity. It is further submitted that said judgment has been passed on placing reliance upon the earlier judgment passed in the case K. L. Asre v. State of M.P. passed on 7.11.2005 in Writ Petition (S) No.1070/2003.

3. According to the counsel for petitioner, the State Government issued a circular dated 21.9.2016 granting the benefit to the work charge

contingency paid establishment employees with effect from 1.1.2016. However, executive instructions issued by the State Government cannot supersede the judgment delivered by this court, which attained finality and, therefore, the executive instructions issued by the State Government to the extent that cut-off date has been fixed is hereby quashed. Therefore, petitioner is entitled for all consequential benefits.

4. Learned counsel for respondents opposed the prayer but however could not dispute the facts.

5. Considering the submissions made by counsel for the parties, this petition is disposed of with a direction that the petitioner is also entitled for the same benefit as other similarly placed employees like Tejulal Yadav, K.L.Asre and Gendalal, etc. (petitioners in Writ Petition No.461/2018) and the judgment passed in those orders would apply mutatis mutandis in the case of petitioner. He shall be entitled for monetary benefits and arrears for the said period. Exercise of passing an appropriate order granting the benefit be concluded within a period of six months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

6. With the above, this petition stands disposed of.

                                                             (MILIND RAMESH PHADKE)
AK/-                                                                 JUDGE
  ANAND KUMAR
  2023.07.14
  10:05:07 +05'30'