Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sonai Sahu vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 7 August, 2024
1 WP-7700-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN
ON THE 7 th OF AUGUST, 2024
WRIT PETITION No. 7700 of 2024
SONAI SAHU
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Prabhakar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Lalit Joglekar, learned GA for the respondent/State.
ORDER
The present petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking relief of
payment of minimum of the pay scale of the post without increments in
terms of judgment of Supreme Court in Ram Naresh Rawat Vs. Sri Ashwani
Ray (2017) 3 SCC 436.
2. The contention of the petitioner is that the petitioner was classified
on the post of Labourer vide order Annex.P/1 passed by the Labour Court on
13/08/1999 and in term of the aforesaid judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court
in the case of Ram Naresh (supra), the petitioner is entitled to minimum of
the revised pay scale without increments.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner also relies on the judgment of
coordinate Bench dated 14/05/2024 in WP No.7908/2024.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for the State submits that it needs to be
verified whether the classification order passed by the labour Court is still
intact or not.
2 WP-7700-2024
5. Heard.
6. The Coordinate Bench in similar circumstances has passed the
following order in WP No.7908/2024:
"Petitioner's grievance is that vide order dated 03.11.1998, passed
by the learned Labour Court Sidhi (M.P.), in Case
No.38/96/MPIR Act, Annx.P/1, he was permanently classified on
the post of Time Keeper.
2. Respondents have not followed that order and vide order
dated 03.02.2018, has in the light of GAD Circular dated
07.10.2016, regulated his services and granted him pay scale as
per the GAD Circular dated 07.10.2016.
3. Petitioner's contention is that one petitioner was classified on
the post of Time Keeper and that order has remained intact,
respondents were required to pay him minimum of the regular pay
scale of the post of Time Keeper in the light of the judgment of
Supreme Court in Ram Naresh Rawat Vs. Sri Ashwani Ray
[(2017) 3 SCC 436)].
4. This being the factual and legal position, impugned order
Annx.P/2, appears to be a cunning devise on the part of the
respondents/Public Works Department to deny the dues of the
petitioner and, therefore, impugned order Annx.P/2, is quashed.
5. At this stage, Shri Ankit Agrawal, learned Govt. Advocate,
submits that order of learned Labour Court has remained
unchallenged and not interfered till date.
6. It is directed that petitioner is entitled to the minimum pay
scale of the post of Time Keeper from the date of his permanent
classification as per the orders of the Labour Court and he will be
entitled to not only the difference of the pay already paid to him, if
any, but also revision of pay scales as have been implemented
from time to time and fixation of pay in the minimum of the
revised pay scale in terms of the law laid down by Ram Naresh
Rawat (supra). Let this exercise be completed within a period of
30 days and arrears be also paid within the aforesaid period.
Respondents will also be liable to pay interest @ 8% p.a. from the
date when the dues were actually payable to the petitioner in the
light of Ram Naresh Rawat (supra) and on the basis of permaent
classification till the date of actual payment.
7. In above terms, petition is disposed of."
3 WP-7700-2024
7. The case of the petitioner seems to be covered by the aforesaid
order.
8. Consequently, this petition is disposed off directing the respondents
No.2 & 3 to verify whether the classification order passed by the labour
Court is still intact or not and if the said order is still intact, the petitioner
would be entitled to same benefits as granted by this Court in WP
No.7908/2024 and the said order shall apply mutatis mutandis to the case of
petitioner also.
9. With the aforesaid direction, this petition is disposed of.
(VIVEK JAIN)
JUDGE
RS
