Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ashok Kumar Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 4 May, 2023
Author: Vivek Rusia
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA
PRADESH
AT I N D O R E
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA
ON THE 4th OF MAY, 2023
WRIT PETITION No. 12192 of 2021
BETWEEN:-
ASHOK KUMAR SINGH S/O SHRI S.N. SINGH,
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, OCCUPATION: SERVICE
OFFICE OF DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICE
BADWANI DISTRICT BADWANI (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI YASH PAL RATHORE-ADVOCATE)
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THR.
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY SCHOOL EDUCATION
1.
DEPARTMENT VALLABH BHAWAN
MANTRALAYA BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
COMMISSIONER LOK SHIKSHAN
2. SANCHANALAYA, GAUTAMNAGAR
GOVINDPURA BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
JOINT DIRECTOR LOK SHIKSHAN INDORE
3.
DIVISION INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER BADWANI
4.
DIST. BADWANI (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI BHUWAN DESHMUKH-LEARNED GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE
/STATE)
This petition coming on for admission this day, the court passed
the following:
ORDER
Heard finally with consent.
1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking the
benefit of krammonat pay scale to the petitioner in terms of the executive
instructions issued by the State dated 17/3/99 and 19/4/99 on completion
of 12 and 24 years of services respectively.
2. The case of the petitioner is that he was initially appointed as Peon
vide order dated 23.03.1990 and on completion of five years of service
he became the member of the contingency paid establishment and his
services were regularised in the pay scale of Rs.750-945 vide order dated
15.11.1994. The further case is that the petitioner was declared
permanent member of the Work charge establishment on completion of
15 years of service vide order dated 18.10.2014.
3. According to the petitioner, in terms of the above circular, the
petitioner should be granted the benefit of the Kramonnat pay scale and
the issue involved in the present case is squarely covered by the
judgment of this Court in the matter of Teju Lal Yadav Vs. State of MP
& others reported in ILR (2009) MP 1326 and in the matter of K.L.
Asre Vs. State passed on 7/11/2005 in Writ Petition (s) 1070/2003.
4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of
record, it is found that the issue involved in the matter is squarely
covered by the judgment of this Court in the matter of Teju Lal Yadav
Vs. State of MP & others reported in ILR (2009) MP 1326 wherein this
Court in the light of the same circulars has considered the issue of grant
of krammonat pay scale to the work charged and contingency paid
employee and on placing reliance upon the earlier judgment in the matter
of K.L. Asre Vs. State passed on 7/11/2005 in Writ Petition (s)
1070/2003 has held as under:-
"6. Apart from the above, it is seen that the petitioner
is working in the Polytechnic College and is said to
be a contingency paid employee. Under the M.P.
Education Department (Technical Branch)
Contingency Paid Employees Recruitment and
Conditions of Service Rules, 1978, a contingency
paid employee is defined under Rule 2(b) to mean a
person employed for full time in an office or
establishment and who is paid on monthly basis and
whose pay is charged to Office Contingencies but it
excludes such of the employees who are employed
for certain periods only in the year. In the aforesaid
Rules of 1978, the categorization of employees is
done under Rule-6 and the employees are classified
into two categories i.e. permanent and temporary.
Under sub-rule 2 of Rule-6, it is provided that on
completion of 15 years of continuous service the
contingency paid employees shall be eligible for
attaining the status of permanent work charged or
contingency paid employee. The similar provisions
are made in the M.P. (Work Charged and
Contingency Paid Employees) Pension Rules, 1979
wherein the permanent employee is defined under
Rule 2(c) to mean a contingency paid employee or a
work charged employee who has completed 15 years
of service or more on or after 1st January 1974.
7. The complete reading of these Rules indicates that
a contingency paid employee attaining the permanent
status and a work charged employee attaining the
permanent status are treated to be similar in all
respects for the purpose of granting them pension
and revision of pay scales under the MP Work
Charged and Contingency Paid Employees Revision
of Pay Rules, 1990 and under the M.P. (Work
Charged and Contingency Paid Employees) Pension
Rules, 1979.
8. Considering the fact that under the statutory rules
also the contingency paid and the work charged
employees are considered to be forming a common
class. There is no reason why the benefit of time
bound promotion which is extended to the work
charged employees and why the judgment rendered
in case of K.L. Asre (supra) be not made applicable
in the case of the present employee also who has
attained the status of a permanent work charged or
contingency paid employees and entitled to various
benefits in the matter of revision of
pay and pension in identical manner.
9. A perusal of the Policy as contained in Annexure
P/3 further indicates that even though the policy
speaks about granting krammonati under the scheme
to employees in the regular establishment, but by
Clause (13) and (14) of the Scheme, the Government
has extended the benefit of Krammonati to vehicle
drivers working in the work charged and contingency
paid establishment. A perusal of Clauses (13) and
(14) clearly indicates that the benefit of krammonati
after completing 12 years and 24 years of service is
made applicable to employees in the work charged
and contingency paid establishment.
10. As far as work charged and contingency paid
employees are concerned, their service conditions are
governed by the same rules namely the Work
Charged and Contingency Paid Employees
Recruitment Rules, applicable to various
departments and the work Charged and Contingency
Paid Employees Pension Rules 1979 and the Work
Charged and Contingency Paid Employees Revision
of Pay Rules, 1990. For the purpose of recruitment,
appointment, pay revision and grant of pensionary
benefits, the work charged and contingency paid
employees constitute a common class and their terms
and conditions of employment are governed by
identical set of rules. It is, therefore, clear that for the
purpose of recruitment, appointment, grant of
pension and revision of pay scales, work charged and
contingency paid employees are treated similarly and
a separate set of rules, different from the one
applicable in the regular establishment, govern their
terms and conditions of employment. The work
charged and contingency paid employees constitute a
common class and therefore, this class of employees
are entitled to similar treatment in all respects,
deviation being permissible on justifiable grounds
and reasons. In the present case, the benefit of time
bound promotion under the scheme- Annexure P/3
and P/4 is extended to vehicle drivers working in the
work charged and contingency paid establishment, as
per the policy itself.
11. The principles laid down in the case of Shri K.L.
Asre (supra) has been made applicable to time
keepers, working work charged and contingency paid
establishment. If time keepers and drivers in the
work charged and contingency paid establishment
are entitled to promotion under the time bound
scheme, there is no reason as to why the said benefit
be not extended to other employees constituting the
same class in the work charged and contingency paid
establishment. The policy is made applicable to
drivers of this establishment and the reason for not
making the said policy applicable to other categories
of the work charged and contingency paid
establishment is not indicated in the return. No
reason is given as to why a different policy is being
adopted in the case of other employees in the work
charged and contingency paid establishment and the
benefit granted to drivers in the said establishment is
not extended to other employees like the petitioner.
Respondents being a "State" has to give similar
benefit to employees similarly situated and forming a
common class. They may be justified in granting
some additional benefit to some of the employees in
comparison to others, but the justification and
reasons for such a classification has to meet the test
of Article 14 of the Constitution and the decision has
to be reasonable, fair and justified by cogent reasons
and relevant considerations. Except for contending
that the policy is not applicable to employees
working in the work charged and contingency paid
establishment, no justification is forthcoming from
the respondents with regard to further classification
amongst the employees working in the work charged
and contingency paid establishment with regard to
implementation of the Policy - Annexure P-3 and P-
4. When the employees working in the work charged
and contingency paid establishment constitute a
common class, all benefits which are extended to one
set of employees namely drivers as per the policy
and the time keepers in the light of the judgment in
the case of K.L. Asre (supra) has to be granted by the
respondents to the present petitioners also. In the
absence of proper justification for adopting a
different policy and cogent reason given justifying
the reasonableness in the classification and
differentiation done fulfilling the requirement of
Article 14 of the Constitution, discrimination cannot
be permitted. Parity in employment is required to be
maintained and therefore, keeping in view the
circumstances and the action of the respondents in
adopting a pick and choose method violative of
Article 14 of the Constitution in the case of
employees who form a homogeneous class, the
action discriminatory in nature cannot be upheld by
this Court.
12. Keeping in view the aforesaid, the respondents
are directed to extend the benefit of promotion in
accordance with the aforesaid scheme to the
petitioner and after evaluating his case in accordance
with the requirements of the said scheme, grant
benefit to the petitioner. In case the petitioner is
found entitled then necessary orders in this regard be
passed within a period of three months.
13. The petition is accordingly allowed and disposed
of."
5. The respondents are trying to draw a distinction on the basis of the
fact that services of the petitioner are governed by Madhya Pradesh
School Education Department Contingency Paid Employees Recruitment
and Conditions of Service Rules, 1987, but the benefit of the Kramonnat
scale is to be extended in terms of the circular issued by the State. This
court has already held that all the contingency employees stand on the
same footing and they cannot be discriminated in respect of grant of
benefit of Kramonnat pay scale. Accordingly, the case of the petitioner is
squarely covered by the judgments of this court in the matter of Tejulal
and K.L.Asre (supra). Since the issue involved in the present case is
covered in favour of the petitioner by the above judgments of this Court,
therefore, the writ petition is disposed of on the same terms and the
respondents are directed to extend the same benefit to the petitioner
which has been extended to the similarly situated contingency paid
employees in the above judgment. Let the said exercise be completed
within a period of 6 months from the date of receipt of certified copy of
this order.
The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of.
Certified copy as per rules.
Vindesh (VIVEK RUSIA)
JUDGE
Digitally signed by VINDESH RAIKWAR
VINDESH
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA
PRADESH BENCH INDORE, ou=HIGH COURT
OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH INDORE,
2.5.4.20=2cae43fc7490310e3840bae97e272
5901dee838523e57439ec62a5ee88dc430c,
RAIKWAR
postalCode=452001, st=Madhya Pradesh,
serialNumber=E49DAA8D0FEF53054B7A97
DEFB4C3BF6C0B15A7DB15DD30DED46D26
B5C6F4CA8, cn=VINDESH RAIKWAR
Date: 2023.05.06 18:32:25 +05'30'
