Rajkishore Indoriya vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 14558 MP

                                                           1
                           IN    THE       HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                 AT GWALIOR
                                                   BEFORE
                                 HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
                                            ON THE 5 th OF SEPTEMBER, 2023
                                            WRIT PETITION No. 25416 of 2019

                          BETWEEN:-
                          RAJKISHORE INDORIYA S/O LATE SHRI CHHADAMI
                          LAL INDORIYA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
                          SERVENT SHIVPURI (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                      .....PETITIONER
                          (BY SHRI C.R. ROMAN - ADVOCATE )

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

                          2.    ENGINEER   IN    CHIEF PUBLIC            WORKS
                                D EPARTM EN T VALLABH BHAWAN,           BHOPAL
                                (MADHYA PRADESH)

                          3.    CHIEF ENGINEER PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
                                GWALIOR (MADHYA PRADESH)

                          4.    EXECUTIVE    ENGINEER    PUBLIC   WORKS
                                D EPARTM EN T DIVISION SHIVPURI (MADHYA
                                PRADESH)

                                                                                    .....RESPONDENTS
                          (BY SHRI G.K. AGARWAL - GOVT. ADVOCATE )

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

The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been directed against the order dated 13.06.2019 passed by respondent No.3 in Signature Not Verified Signed by: ABDUR RAHMAN Signing time: 06-Sep-23 5:53:29 PM

pursuance to the directions of this Court passed in W.P. No.17716/2017 dated 29.11.2017, whereby the representation of the petitioner was directed to be considered and a decision was directed to be taken in the light of judgment rendered in W.P. No.16741/2003 for grant of benefit of pay scale of 515-800 and corresponding pay scale revised from time to time, was rejected.

Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is an employee of Public Works Department and was appointed as a Timekeeper on 28.10.1989 under the Work Charge Establishment. Earlier a writ petition No.17716/2017 was preferred by the petitioner for the same relief, which was disposed of with a direction as aforesaid. In pursuance thereof, the impugned order dated

13.06.2019 came to be passed. Aggrieved by the same, the present petition has been filed.

Learned counsel for the petitioner while placing reliance in the matter of A.L. Thakur and others Vs. State of M.P. and others passed in W.P. No.16054/2003 on 27.06.2012 and that of Pratap Singh and others Vs. State of M.P. passed in W.P. No.16741/2003 on the same date as also in the matter o f R.K. Lakhera and others Vs. State of M.P. and others passed in W.P. No.13540/2010 dated 13.12.2012 submitted that the impugned order had not been passed keeping consonance with the dictum passed in the above matters and thus, it is bad in law. It was further argued that the case of the petitioner for grant of benefit of appropriate pay scale was rejected on the ground that the job responsibilities of the petitioner who is working as a Timekeeper (Field Assistant) was different from that of Ameen working in Water Resources Department and as there is a difference of job responsibilities, the State Government had kept different pay scales for the said posts and as the responsibilities and the pay scales were not similar, therefore, the benefit of pay Signature Not Verified Signed by: ABDUR RAHMAN Signing time: 06-Sep-23 5:53:29 PM

scale which is granted to Ameen working in the Water Resources Department cannot be granted to the petitioner and accordingly the representation was rejected, which is per se illegal and dehorse to dictum of the orders passed in the case of A.L. Thakur (Supra) and R.K. Lakhera (Supra), therefore, it is prayed that the petition be allowed and the similar benefit be granted to the petitioner in the light of the above judgment as has been granted to other similarly situated employees.

I n response, learned Government Advocate tried to justify its stand stating that the recommendations for grant of pay scale by the Pay Commission is accepted by the State Government and since the Commission has recommended different pay scales for the persons like petitioners taking into consideration their job responsibilities, the petitioner was not entitled for the relief claimed in the petition. It was argued that the duties of the post of Field Assistant working in the department of Public Works Department is altogether different to that of Ameen working in the Water Resources Department and as both the posts are different and the rules governing the said posts provide for separate pay scale for both the posts and accordingly the representation of the petitioner has rightly been declined and the impugned order is legal and valid and calls for no interference.

It was also contended that the petitioner cannot compare himself with the

other posts which are having different qualifications, duties and are of different departments governed by separate service rules and the argument in this behalf per se cannot be accepted. It was further argued that the petitioner is seeking parity without challenging the provisions pertaining to pay scales provided under the rules applicable and governing service conditions for the posts and

Signature Not Verified Signed by: ABDUR RAHMAN Signing time: 06-Sep-23 5:53:29 PM

that being so, no relief as claimed for by the petitioner can be granted. Thus, it was prayed that the petition being wholly misconceived deserves to be dismissed.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. After considering the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the opinion that the present petition deserves to be allowed in terms of the order passed by this Court in the case of A.L. Thakur and others (Supra) and R.K. Lakhera and others (Supra) as there is no scope available to the respondents/State to avoid giving the benefit of pay scales as claimed by the petitioner specially when the issue has already attained finality on adjudication by the Tribunal and on account of accepting the same by the State Government.

Though, from the impugned order it is reflected that the case of the petitioner was considered with that of Ameen working in Water Resources Department but the fact remains that the claim of Timekeeper/Field Assistant, D a t a Processor etc., were considered in the case of Laxmi Narayan Upadhyay Vs. State of M.P. & others decided by the M.P. Administrative Tribunal and it was held that the persons like petitioners were entitled to the pay scale of Rs.515-800 and if such a finding was accepted by the respondent State in case of Laxmi Narayan (Supra) and in terms of the said decision, the order was issued way back in the year 1999 by deciding not to file any appeal against such orders, it is not open to the State now to say that such benefit is not available to the petitioner. This aspect has been considered by the coordinate Bench in the matter of A.L. Thakur (Supra) and R.K. Lakhera (Supra) and which were challenged before the Supreme Court and the SLP of the State has been dismissed, thus has attained finality.

Signature Not Verified Signed by: ABDUR RAHMAN Signing time: 06-Sep-23 5:53:29 PM

In the light of aforesaid, the petitioner being similarly situated qua A.L. Thakur (Supra) and R.K. Lakhera (Supra) is entitled to the same benefit. Hence, the impugned order dated 13.06.2019 is set aside. the respondents shall provide similar pay scale to the petitioner from the due date with all benefits as per his entitlement. This order shall be implemented within a period of three months from the date of production of copy of this order.

Accordingly, the present petition stands allowed.

(MILIND RAMESH PHADKE) JUDGE ar

Signature Not Verified Signed by: ABDUR RAHMAN Signing time: 06-Sep-23 5:53:29 PM