Madhya Pradesh High Court
The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Shri Satya Narayan Sharma on 29 February, 2024
Author: Sunita Yadav
Bench: Sunita Yadav, Milind Ramesh Phadke
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE SUNITA YADAV
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
WRIT APPEAL No. 226 of 2021
BETWEEN:-
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY VALLABH BHAWAN
BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. ENGINEER IN CHIEF PUBLIC HEALTH
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT, SATPUDA
BHAWAN BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. CHIEF ENGINEER PUBLIC HEALTH
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT NEAR WATER
TANK MORAR GWALIOR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
4. EXCUTIVE ENGINEER PUBLIC HEALTH
ENGINERING DEPARTMNET DIVISION BHIND
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANTS
( ANKUR MODY APPEARING ON BEHALF OF ADVOCATE
GENERAL)
AND
SHRI SATYA NARAYAN SHARMA S/O SHRI
KELASH NARAYAN SHARMA, R/O SERVICE KOT
KA KUA WARD NO. 6 GOHAD BHIND (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENT
(DEVESH SHARMA, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT
[R-1])
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reserved on 06/02/2024
Delivered on 29/02/2024
2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This petition coming on for hearing this day, Hon'ble Justice
Sunita Yadav passed the following:
ORDER
1. The present writ appeal under Section 2 (1) of M.P. Uchcha
Nyayalaya (Khand Nyay Peeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 has
been preferred against an order dated 28.11.2016 passed in
contempt case no.1008/2015 which was arising out of the original
order dated 27.07.2015 passed in W.P. No.4756/2015, whereby
while disposing of the contempt petition learned single judge had
directed the respondents therein to work out the monitory benefits
still to be paid to the petitioner and credit it to the account of the
petitioner treating the date of classification as relevant date for
calculation of the said benefits within six months from today.
2. The aforesaid order passed in contempt has been assailed by
the State on the ground that the ultimate direction given in the
concluding para is a result of bonafide mistake and oversite as it
creates the dispute/confusion as to whether the monitory benefits
to which the respondent/petitioner was entitled is to be reckoned
from the date of classification or from the date of order of
classification, as the appellant/State had given the benefit to the
respondent/petitioner from the date of order of classification i.e.
30.07.2005
3. Shri Ankur Modi, learned AAG while referring to the
impugned order dated 28.11.2016 submitted that in the impugned
order reference of the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case
of Sultan Singh Narwariya which was decided while hearing SLP
(c) No.20025/2011 preferred against the order dated 14.02.2011
passed in Writ Appeal No.110/2011 and order dated 01.07.2011
passed in Review Petition No.153/2011 preferred against the
original order passed in the matter of Sultan Singh Narwariya in
W.P. No.595/2010(s) vide order dated 29.07.2010 whereby the
petitioner was held to be entitled for the regular pay-scale for the
post of Pump Driver on which he was classified as permanent
from the date of the order of classification has been issued by the
respondents, but contrary to the aforesaid the learned Single Judge
while hearing the contempt proceedings had issued directions to
work out the monitory benefits still to be paid to the petitioner and
credit it to his account "treating the date of classification as
relevant date for calculation of said benefits", within six months
from today and since the said directions relates to the merits of the
matter and had been passed in contempt proceedings, the
aggrieved person cannot be kept stranded without remedy and
such an order is open to challenge in an intra-Court appeal".
4. To bolster his submissions he had placed reliance in the
matter of Midnapore Peopls' Cooperative Bank Ltd and Ors
vs. Chunilal Nanda and Ors reported in 2006 (5) SCC 399.
5. It was further submitted that even in the case of Ram
Naresh Rawat vs. Ashwini Ray 2017 (3) SCC 436, the petitioner
therein i.e. Ram Naresh Rawat had received benefit w.e.f date of
classification of the order and not from the date of his
classification. Thus, it was submitted that since directions
touching to the merits of the matter have been issued by the
learned Single Judge while disposing of the contempt petition the
said writ appeal is maintainable and as the order impugned is per
se illegal, deserves to be quashed.
6. Per Contra, learned counsel for the respondent while
placing reliance in the matter of State of M.P and Ors vs. Arun
Sharma passed in W.A. No.922/2020 dated 09.07.2021 and in
the matter of State of M.P and ors vs. Vijay Singh Kushwah
passed in W.A. No.923/2020 dated 28.07.2021 contended that the
present Writ appeal against the order passed in contempt
proceedings is not maintainable and the coordinate benches of this
Court dealing with the similar controversy had dismissed the writ
appeals as not maintainable and had given liberty to the appellants
i.e. State of M.P to avail appropriate remedy i.e. they may either
file review petition before learned Single Judge or SLP if so
advised.
7. It was further submitted that the original order passed in
W.P. No.4756/2015 was in the light of Kaluram Narwariya vs.
State of M.P and Ors passed in W.P. No.2000/2015 dated
06.04.2015, wherein directions for grant of regular pay-scale
attached to the permanent post was directed from the date of
classification as permanent employee and as the order of Kaluram
Narwariya (supra) till date has not been over-ruled or set aside
and still holds field the order passed on its basis will have its
effect and, therefore, mere making a reference of the case of
Sultan Singh Narwariya (supra) in the order of contempt would be
of no consequence.
8. It was further contended that in the matter of Kaluram
Narwariya (supra) consideration of SLP (civil) No.20025/2011
passed in the matter of Sultan Singh Narwariya (supra) was also
made and, thereafter, in the light of judgment passed in State of
MP vs. Ramprakash reported in 1989 JLJ 36, it was observed
that the monitory benefits shall be extended to the employees
from the date of classification as permanent employee. Thus, it
was submitted that the contentions as raised by the counsel for the
appellant/State is wholly mis-conceived and the appeal being
without any substance deserves to be dismissed.
9. Heard the counsels for the parties and perused the record.
10. From bare perusal of the original order passed in W.P.
No.4756/2015 dated 27.07.2015, it could be observed that the
said order was based upon the order passed in the matter of
Kaluram Narwariya (supra). In the matter of Kaluram Narwariya
(supra) the case of Sultan Singh Narwariya (supra) was
considered and, thereafter, in the light of the judgment passed in
State of MP vs. Ramprakash (supra) following observations were
made:
Resultantly, this petition is disposed of by
following directions :- (1) The petitioner
shall file a fresh representation before
respondents along with the proof of
acquiring permanent status by way of
classification. The respondents shall verify
and if petitioner's permanent status
remains intact, he shall be given similar
treatment, i.e., grant of regular pay scale
attached to the permanent post from the
date of classification as permanent
employee. (2) The respondents shall also
grant increments attached to the pay scale
and if rules permit, extend benefit of DA in
favour of the petitioner. (3) The
respondents shall also pass a speaking
order regarding claim of grant of seniority
to the petitioner from the date of
classification as permanent employee. (4)
If for any justifiable reason, the petitioner is
not found entitled for any of the benefits
claimed, a detailed and reasoned order be
passed and communicated to the
petitioner. The aforesaid exercise be
production of copy of this order along with
the representation. (5) It is made clear that
it will not be open to the respondents to
deny relief to the petitioners on the ground
that they were not litigants in W.A. No.
1266/2010 and other similar matters, which
were decided on merits, if they are
otherwise similarly situated. Petition is
disposed of."
11. The petition of the present respondent was disposed of in terms
of the order passed in Kaluram Narwariya (supra) and it was observed
that directions contained therein shall apply mutatis mutandis to this
case. Since the matter was disposed of in the light of judgment passed
in Kaluram Narwariya (supra) according to this Court mere reference of
the matter of Sultan Singh Narwariya (supra), which was considered in
the judgment of Kaluram Narwariya (supra), it cannot be said that any
new directions have been issued by the learned Single Judge while
hearing the contempt proceedings.
12. According to this Court learned Single Judge had just mentioned
the findings given in the matter of Kaluram Narwariya (supra)
accordingly, the present writ appeal cannot be said to be maintainable
against an order passed in contempt proceedings.
13. The judgment cited by the learned counsel for the appellant in
the matter of Midnapore Peoples' Cooperative Bank Ltd (supra), thus, is
not applicable, the writ appeal accordingly is hereby dismissed.
13. CC as per rules/directions.
(Sunita Yadav) (Milind Ramesh Phadke)
Judge Judge
chandni/- 28/02/2024 28/02/2024
CHANDNI
NARWARI
YA
2024.02.2
9 17:19:29
+05'30'
