Madhya Pradesh High Court
Anil Kumar Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 28 June, 2023
Author: Vijay Kumar Shukla
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA
ON THE 28 th OF JUNE, 2023
WRIT PETITION No. 14158 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
1. ANIL KUMAR SINGH S/O SHRI BANSHPATI SINGH,
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, OCCUPATION: LDC (A.G.
III) O/O EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (PWD) NVDA SSP
REHABILIZATION DIVISON BARWANI DIST.
BARWANI (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. DEVENDRA KUMAR SOLANKI S/O SHRI
BHAGWANDAS, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: RETIRED TRACER O/O EXECUTIVE
ENGINEER PWD NVDA SSP REHABILIZATION
DIVISION BARWANI (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. NANURAM YADAV S/O SHRI BHAGWAN YADAV,
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, OCCUPATION: LDC AGIII
O/O EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (PWD) NVDA SSP
REHABILIZATION DIVISON BARWANI DIST.
BARWANI (MADHYA PRADESH)
4. ANIL GEETE S/O SHRI RAMESH CHANDRA GEETE,
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, OCCUPATION: LDC AGIII
O/O EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (PWD) NVDA SSP
REHABILIZATION DIVISON BARWANI DIST.
BARWANI (MADHYA PRADESH)
5. KAILASH GOTWAL S/O SHRI VEDPRAKASH
GOTWAL, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
LDC AGIII O/O EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (PWD)
NVDA SSP REHABILIZATION DIVISON BARWANI
DIST. BARWANI (MADHYA PRADESH)
6. KAMLESH JOSHI S/O VINOD JOSHI, AGED ABOUT
52 YEARS, OCCUPATION: ASSISTANT
DRAFTSMAN O/O EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (PWD)
NVDA SSP REHABILIZATION DIVISON BARWANI
DIST. BARWANI (MADHYA PRADESH)
7. SURENDRA KUMAR NAIK S/O SHRI KRISHNARAO
NAIK, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
ASSISTANT DRAFTSMAN O/O EXECUTIVE
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MUKTA
CHANDRASHEKHAR KOUSHAL
Signing time: 28-Jun-23 6:23:00
PM
2
ENGINEER (PWD) NVDA SSP REHABILIZATION
DIVISON BARWANI DIST. BARWANI (MADHYA
PRADESH)
8. DILIP SHUKLA S/O BHAGWAN SHUKLA, AGED
ABOUT 54 YEARS, OCCUPATION: LDC AGIII O/O
EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (PWD) NVDA SSP
REHABILIZATION DIVISON BARWANI DIST.
BARWANI (MADHYA PRADESH)
9. RAKESH KUMAR SHRIVASTAVA S/O RAM SINGH,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, OCCUPATION: LDC AGIII
O/O EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (PWD) NVDA SSP
REHABILIZATION DIVISON BARWANI DIST.
BARWANI (MADHYA PRADESH)
10. KAMAL KUMAR TIWARI S/O DAMODHAR
TIWARI, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
PEON O/O EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (PWD) NVDA
SSP REHABILIZATION DIVISON BARWANI DIST.
BARWANI (MADHYA PRADESH)
11. MUKESH PATIDAR S/O SHRI MOOLCHAND
PATIDAR, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
LDC AGIII O/O EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (PWD)
NVDA SSP REHABILIZATION DIVISON BARWANI
DIST. BARWANI (MADHYA PRADESH)
12. GOPAL KUSHWAHA S/O MANSHARAM
KUSHWAHA, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: CHOKIDAR O/O EXECUTIVE
ENGINEER (PWD) NVDA SSP REHABILIZATION
DIVISON BARWANI DIST. BARWANI (MADHYA
PRADESH)
13. VIKRAM NINGWAL S/O NATHURAM NINGWAL,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
CHOKIDAR O/O EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (PWD)
NVDA SSP REHABILIZATION DIVISON BARWANI
DIST. BARWANI (MADHYA PRADESH)
14. SUNIL KUMAR DAYA S/O DAYAJI, AGED ABOUT 60
YEARS, OCCUPATION: DRIVER O/O EXECUTIVE
ENGINEER (PWD) NVDA SSP REHABILIZATION
DIVISON BARWANI DIST. BARWANI (MADHYA
PRADESH)
15. ABHAY KUMAR JOSHI S/O KAILASH CHANDRA,
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, OCCUPATION: LDC AGIII
O/O EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (PWD) NVDA SSP
REHABILIZATION DIVISON BARWANI DIST.
BARWANI (MADHYA PRADESH)
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MUKTA
CHANDRASHEKHAR KOUSHAL
Signing time: 28-Jun-23 6:23:00
PM
3
16. CHETRAM DANDOTIYA S/O KANCHAN SINGH,
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, OCCUPATION: LDC AGIII
O/O EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (PWD) NVDA SSP
REHABILIZATION DIVISON BARWANI DIST.
BARWANI (MADHYA PRADESH)
17. REVARAM MANDLOI S/O SHOBHARAM
MANDLOI, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
LDC AGIII O/O EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (PWD)
NVDA SSP REHABILIZATION DIVISON BARWANI
DIST. BARWANI (MADHYA PRADESH)
18. RAKESH KUMAR BHAWSAR S/O BANSHILAL
BHAWSAR, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: TRACER O/O EXECUTIVE
ENGINEER (PWD) NVDA SSP REHABILIZATION
DIVISON BARWANI DIST. BARWANI (MADHYA
PRADESH)
19. PREM SINGH S/O NATWAR SINGH, AGED ABOUT
54 YEARS, OCCUPATION: PEON O/O EXECUTIVE
ENGINEER (PWD) NVDA SSP REHABILIZATION
DIVISON BARWANI DIST. BARWANI (MADHYA
PRADESH)
20. YUSUF S/O HAAJI ISA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: PUMP ATTEDANT O/O EXECUTIVE
ENGINEER (PWD) NVDA SSP REHABILIZATION
DIVISON BARWANI DIST. BARWANI (MADHYA
PRADESH)
21. SUBHASH GEETE S/O RAMESH CHANDRA GEETE,
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, OCCUPATION: LDC AG III
O/O EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (PWD) NVDA SSP
REHABILIZATION DIVISON BARWANI DIST.
BARWANI (MADHYA PRADESH)
22. BHUWNESHWAR KANUNGO S/O SHRI ANAND
RAM, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
TRACER O/O EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (PWD) NVDA
SSP REHABILIZATION DIVISON BARWANI DIST.
BARWANI (MADHYA PRADESH)
23. SHASHIKANT MISHRA S/O INDRAMANI MISHRA,
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, OCCUPATION: SUB
ENGINEER O/O EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (PWD)
NVDA SSP REHABILIZATION DIVISON BARWANI
DIST. BARWANI (MADHYA PRADESH)
24. SUNIL SHRIVASTAVA S/O K.S. SHRIVASTAVA,
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, OCCUPATION: SUB
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MUKTA
CHANDRASHEKHAR KOUSHAL
Signing time: 28-Jun-23 6:23:00
PM
4
ENGINEER O/O EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (PWD)
NVDA SSP REHABILIZATION DIVISON BARWANI
DIST. BARWANI (MADHYA PRADESH)
25. KAMLESH BAGUL S/O SHIVRAM BAGUL, AGED
ABOUT 53 YEARS, OCCUPATION: SUB ENGINEER
O/O EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (PWD) NVDA SSP
REHABILIZATION DIVISON BARWANI DIST.
BARWANI (MADHYA PRADESH)
26. PRABHAT SINGH THAKUR S/O BABU SINGH,
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, OCCUPATION: LDC AGIII
O/O EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (PWD) NVDA SSP
REHABILIZATION DIVISON BARWANI DIST.
BARWANI (MADHYA PRADESH)
27. DIGVIJAY SINGH S/O MOHAN SINGH, AGED
ABOUT 55 YEARS, OCCUPATION: PEON O/O
EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (PWD) NVDA SSP
REHABILIZATION DIVISON BARWANI DIST.
BARWANI (MADHYA PRADESH)
28. DONGAR SINGH S/O PYAR SINGH, AGED ABOUT
58 YEARS, OCCUPATION: PEON O/O EXECUTIVE
ENGINEER (PWD) NVDA SSP REHABILIZATION
DIVISON BARWANI DIST. BARWANI (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI RAJEEV KUMAR JAIN - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL
SECRETARY NARMADA VALLEY DEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY VALLABH BHAWAN BHOPAL
(MADHYA PRADESH)
2. VICE CHAIRMAN NARMADA VALLEY
DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (NVDA) 59 ARERA
HILLS NARMADA BHAWAN TULSI NAGAR
BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. DIRECTOR (ADMINISTRATION) NARMADA
VALLEY DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (NVDA) 59
ARERA HILLS BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
4. CHIEF ENGINEER NARMADA GHATI VIKAS PW
NARMADA BHAWAN BHOPAL (MADHYA
PRADESH)
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MUKTA
CHANDRASHEKHAR KOUSHAL
Signing time: 28-Jun-23 6:23:00
PM
5
5. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER PUBLIC WORKS
DEPARTMENT NARMADA VALLEY
DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY SARDAR SAROVAR
PROJECT REHABILATION DIVISION BARWANI
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(SHRI A.S.PARIHAR - P.L .FOR STATE )
(sHRI VIVEK PATWA - G.A. FOR RESPONDENT NOS.2 TO 4)
This petition coming on for admission this day, the court passed the
following:
ORDER
The petitioners have filed the present petition for extending the benefit of
7th Pay Commission.
2. The petitioners are working as daily rated employee of the Narmada Valley
Development Department (NVDA). That, earlier the benefit of 6th Pay
Commission was granted to some of the daily rated employees, but some of the
similarly situated persons were not granted the benefit of pay scale of 6th Pay
Commission. One of such employees has filed a writ petition bearing W.P.
No.5332/2010(Kishorilal Prajapati & Ors. Vs. State of M.P. & Ors. ). The said
writ petition was allowed vide order dated 3/07/2012 and the order passed by the
learned Single Judge was confirmed in the writ petition as well as in the SLP filed
by the State Government. Thereafter, the benefit of 6th Pay Scale was granted to
the employees.
3. The petitioners being similarly situated has also filed writ petition
before this Court and the petition was also allowed in terms of order which is
passed in the W.P. No.2510/2018 case of Kishorilal Prajapat (supra). That,
thereafter, the 7th Pay Commission was made applicable to the State Government
employees w.e.f. 1/01/2016. The petitioners submit that as the benefit of 5th and
6th Pay Scale was extended to them at par with the Government employees,
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MUKTA
CHANDRASHEKHAR KOUSHAL
Signing time: 28-Jun-23 6:23:00
PM
therefore, they are also entitled to get the benefit of 7th Pay Scale.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are also
performing the same duty like a regular employee and, therefore, the said action of
the respondents amounts to discrimination.
5. The respondents have filed their reply and submits that the petitioners are daily
wager employees and, therefore, the M.P. Pay Revision Rules, 2017 (in short ...
"the Rules of 2017") by which the pay scale of regular employees of State
Government was revised, are not applicable to the petitioners as they are not the
regular employee of the State Government. Rule 1(B) (i) (vii) of the Rules of 2017
makes it clear that the same are not applicable on the petitioners and, therefore,
the petitioners are not entitled for the benefit of pay revision. It is further stated
that the benefit of minimum pay scale as per the pay scale of 6th Pay Commission
has been given to the petitioners in compliance of the order passed by this Court,
which cannot be extended for grant of benefit of revision of pay scale on the basis
of recommendation of 7th Pay Commission. The petitioners are not regular
employees of the State Government nor they are appointed against any vacant
post following the due process of recruitment and, thus, they are not entitled for
revision of pay scale as no pay scale is applicable to them. In the light of the
aforesaid, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the petition deserves to
be dismissed.
6. The petitioners have filed a rejoinder and in the said rejoinder it has been
stated that at the time of consideration of W.P. No.5332/2010(S) (Kishorilal
Prajapati & Ors. Vs. State of M.P. & Ors.), the respondents have raised a similar
stand regarding Rules of 2009 stating that as the petitioner is daily wager
employee, therefore, he is not entitled to get the benefit of 6th Pay Commission.
Therefore, after considering the similar Rules of 2009, this Court has granted
benefit of 6th Pay Commission to the petitioners, therefore, certainly they are
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MUKTA
CHANDRASHEKHAR KOUSHAL
Signing time: 28-Jun-23 6:23:00
PM
entitled to get the benefit of 7th Pay Commission also.
7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
8. In the present case, the petitioners are the daily wages employee of the NVDA
and they are getting minimum of the pay scale. The petitioners were not granted
the benefit of 6th Pay Commission as has been granted to the State Government
employees, therefore, writ petition was filed before this Court. Those petition was
allowed and the respondents were directed to grant the benefit of Pay Scale on the
recommendation of 6th Pay Commission to the petitioners.
9. That, thereafter, the State Government has made applicable the
recommendation of 7th Pay Commission to its employees. However, the said
benefit has not been extended to the petitioners, therefore, the present writ petition
has been filed.
10. The respondents in their reply has stated that the Rules of 2017 are not
applicable to the petitioner as he is not the regular employee of the State
Government. The said arguments were raised by the petitioners in the judgment of
Kishorilal Prajapati & Ors (supra), passed by this Court, which was maintained
upto the Supreme Court. In Para- 6 and 7 of the said judgment, this Court has
held as under :-
"6. The principle of classification of an employee on a post, as is
envisaged in the Industrial Law is very simple. If an employee is
said to have remained working in one calender year for 240 days
or more on one post, he is said to be entitled for classification on
the said post. If the persons like petitioners are continuing, it is very
clear that the work is available. If the work is available and the
posts are already sanctioned, the petitioners are said to be
classified on the said post on account of their continuous long
working for 20 or more years. Thus, the stand taken by the
respondents that the petitioners would not be entitled to minimum
of the pay scale of the post against which they are working, cannot
be accepted.
The factual aspect is distinguishable than that of the facts in the
case of M.P Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd. (supra). The very same
principle would not be attracted in the present case.
7. If the persons like petitioners were granted the benefit of
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MUKTA
CHANDRASHEKHAR KOUSHAL
Signing time: 28-Jun-23 6:23:00
PM
minimum of the pay scale with the allowances, applicable on the
post on which they are working, how could it be said that they will
not be entitled to the revision of the pay scale if the pay of the said
post is revised by the State Government accepting the
recommendation of the Sixth Pay Commission. The order of the
Tribunal is clear. It nowhere says that the persons like petitioners
would be entitled to only minimum of the pay scale as is prevalent
on the date and they will never get benefit of revision of the pay
scale. The only rider put by the Tribunal is that the petitioners
would not get the increments of pay. This being so, the respondents
are bound to extend the benefit of revision of the pay, applicable to
the post on which the petitioners are working. Consequently, the
petitioners will get the benefit of minimum of the revised pay scale
and
allowances of the posts against which they are working, as has
been accepted by the State Government on the basis of
recommendation of the Sixth Pay Commission. The same would be
applicable to the persons like petitioners from the date the revision
of pay scale has been done. The admissible amount is to be
calculated and is to be paid to the petitioners."
11. That, in the present case also the petitioners are working for 20 or more than
20 years and they are continuing on their post which shows that the work is
available and the posts are already sanctioned. The petitioners are performing their
work as that of regular employees and, therefore, the same analogy which has
been made applicable by this Court in the case of Kishorilal Prajapati (supra)
would be applicable in the present case also. Thus, the action of the respondents
in not extending the benefit of 7th Pay Commission to the employees is per se
illegal and discriminatory.
12. Resultantly, the writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to grant
the benefit of revision of pay scale on the recommendation of 7th Pay
Commission to the petitioners and the respondents are further directed to pay
arrears of salary to the petitioners within a period of three months from the date of
certified copy of the order passed today.
13. With the aforesaid directions, the writ petition stands disposed of.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MUKTA
CHANDRASHEKHAR KOUSHAL
Signing time: 28-Jun-23 6:23:00
PM
(VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA)
JUDGE
MK
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MUKTA
CHANDRASHEKHAR KOUSHAL
Signing time: 28-Jun-23 6:23:00
PM
