Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Dhannobai Mehra vs Medical Education Department on 15 February, 2024
Author: Pranay Verma
Bench: Pranay Verma
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRANAY VERMA
ON THE 15 th OF FEBRUARY, 2024
WRIT PETITION No. 3753 of 2018
BETWEEN:-
SMT. DHANNOBAI MEHRA W/O SHRI SURENDRA
MEHRA, AGED 65 YEARS, OCCUPATION: SERVICE,
WAITER CUM COOK, R/O MGM MEDICAL COLLEGE,
INDORE 26/3, MEDICAL COLLEGE CAMPUS, MGM
MEDICAL COLLEGE, INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI PRAVEEN BAWSE - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. MEDICAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT PRINCIPAL
SECRETARY VALLABH BHAWAN, BHOPAL
(MADHYA PRADESH)
2. THE DEAN MAHATMA GANDHI MEMORIAL
M ED I CAL, COLLEGE, A.B. ROAD, (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI ANENDRA SINGH PARIHAR - GOVT. ADVOCATE)
This petition coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
By this petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
the petitioner has challenged the action of the respondents in not extending the
benefit of enhanced pay scale of Rs.2,750/- to 4,400/- w.e.f. 01.04.2006 to her
pursuant to the implementation of recommendation of Brahma Swarup
Committee. Prayer has also been made for refixing the pay of the petitioner and
releasing arrears thereof.
2. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner has brought to the
notice of this Court an order dated 04.07.2023 passed in W.A. No.49/2021
Shri Govindram Seksaria Institute of Technology and Science vs. Mahipal
Singh Jeena and an order dated 05.06.2020 passed in W.P.
No.3014/2018 Mahipal Singh Jeena vs. Shri Govindram Seksaria
Institure of Technology and Science to contend that the issue involved in this
petition has already been considered and decided in the aforesaid case, hence
the petitioner is also entitled to the same relief as has been granted to the
petitioner in the said petition.
3. In the case of Mahipal Singh Jeena (Supra), it was held by this
Court as under:-
"13. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition against
inaction of the respondent/s in not extending the benefit of
second time pay-scales as well as the order of recovery issued by
the respondent/s vide Annexure-P/7 and P/9.
14. The petitioner was initially appointed on the post of LDC on
daily wages on 12/04/1979. He was regularized on the said post
on 26/05/1981, thereafter, he was selected as UDC and then
Office Assistant (PG). In the year 1997, an advertisement was
published for appointment on the post of Registrar. The
petitioner applied for the said post and appointed as Registrar
on 15/12/1997. Thereafter, in pursuant to the Scheme framed by
the State Government for extending the benefit of time pay-
scales to its employees. The respondent/s has granted first time
pay-scale revision of salary to the petitioner vide order dated
06/05/2010. thereafter, a Committee was constituted for
recommending second time pay-scale revision to the petitioner
w.e.f. 15/12/2013, however, those recommendations have not
been carried out. A letter was sent to DTE regarding grant of
benefit of time pay-scale Scheme to all the post including
Registrar vide letter dated 13/10/2017. In the meanwhile, on
24/11/2017, the DTE replied to the respondent clarifying that the
respondent / institute who has its own Governing Body, has
supreme Authority to decide the matter.. The petitioner
thereafter submitted a representation for grant of second time
pay-scale to the petitioner, The petitioner, thereafter, submitted
the present writ petition. This Court was pleased to issue notice
to the respondents. After receiving notice, the Director has
passed an order dated 19/02/2018, ordering recovery from the
retiral dues of the petitioner and the order dated 20/02/2018
sanctioning retiral dues of salary of 2006. The petitioner has
challenged these both orders by way of making amendment in
the petition.
15. Learned counsel for the respondent, in their reply has stated
that there is audit objection Annexure- R/5. In the letter, it has
been stated that the post of Registrar does not fall under the
herarci of the post given under the recruitment rules and
therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to get the benefit of the
said time pay-scale. Second objection, which is raised by the
respondent is that the petitioner is working on the post of
Registrar, which is a promoted post and therefore, he is not
entitled to get the benefit of the Scheme framed by the State
Government. So far as the objection regarding the post which is
not mentioned in the Schedule of the Rules is concerned, this
Court in the case of Abhimannu Vyas (supra) in para 8 has dealt
with as follows :
08-The second important aspect of the case is that most of
the employees of the University are being paid Time Bound
Pay Scale and merely because the post of the petitioner
does not find place in the notification issued by the State
Government dated 24/01/2008, the petitioner cannot be
denied up-gradation under the policy of Time Bound Pay
Scale. Such an act is certainly violative of Article 14, 16
and 21 of the Constitution of India. The University is
certainly discriminating the petitioner vis-à-vis other
employees. If other employees have been granted the up-
gradation under the Time Bound Pay Scale, the petitioner
is also entitled for up-gradation from the same date from
which other employees have been granted the benefit.
Employees placed in one institution cannot be denied the
higher pay scale on a technical ground.
16. That as per this judgment, the University could not deny the
benefit of time bound pay-scale merely because the post of the
petitioner does not find place in the notification issued by the
State Government. Similar view has been taken by this Court in
the case of Shashibala (supra). In light of the aforesaid
objections raised by the auditor does not survive and deserves to
be quashed.
17. So far as second objection raised by learned counsel for the
respondent is that the petitioner has got promoted numbers of
time during his service career, therefore, is not entitled to get the
benefit of the Scheme framed by the State Government, is also
not correct, because in the present case, an advertisement was
issued by the respondent/s, and the petitioner had submitted his
application for appointment on the said post and therefore, it
cannot be said that the petitioner is promoted on the post of
Registrar. It is also noted that the order of recovery has been
passed by the respondent without issuing any notice or giving an
opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. This Court, in the case
of Laxmanlal Rathore (supra) has held that recovery of excess
amount paid to the employee on his placement on higher pay-
scale after retirement is not permissible. It is also well settled
law that recovery of any excess amount cannot be made without
giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
18. In light of the aforesaid discussions, present writ petition is
allowed and the order impugned are hereby set aside. However,
the respondents are directed to consider the case of the
petitioner for grant of second time pay-scale in accordance with
law. The respondents are further directed to pay revised pay-
scale, retiral dues etc. The entire exercise be completed within a
period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy
of this order."
4. It is further seen that the aforesaid order has received the stamp of
approval by the Division Bench also. Learned counsel for the respondents
could not dispute the fact that the case of the petitioner in this petition is similar
to the case of the petitioner in the aforesaid case.
5. As a consequence, the petition deserves to be and is accordingly
allowed and the respondents are directed to consider the case of petitioner for
grant of second time pay scale in accordance with law. They are further
directed to pay revised pay scale, retiral dues, etc. The entire exercise be
completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified
copy of this order.
(PRANAY VERMA)
JUDGE
Shruti
