Madhya Pradesh High Court
Dabbalal Singh Chadhar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 29 February, 2024
Author: Vivek Agarwal
Bench: Vivek Agarwal
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWAL
ON THE 29 th OF FEBRUARY, 2024
WRIT PETITION No. 4682 of 2024
BETWEEN:-
DABBALAL SINGH CHADHAR S/O LATE SHRI GIRAN
SINGH CHADHAR, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: DAILYWAGER EMPLOYEE POSTED IN
THE OFFICE OF EXECUTIVE ENGINEER NARMADA
DEVELOPMENT DIVISION NO 7 R/O SATNA DISTRICT
SATNA (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI KISHORI LAL PANDEY - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
THE PRINCIPAL SECREATARY DEPARTMENT OF
NARAMADA VALLEY DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT MANTRALAYA VALLABH BHAWAN
BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. THE CHIEF ENGINEER BARGI HILLS JABALPUR
TILWARA ROAD, DISTRICT JABALPUR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
3. THE EXECUTIVE NARMADA NARMADA
DEVELOPMENT GHATI SAMBHAG NO.07 SATNA
DISTRICT SATNA (MADHYA PRADESH)
4. THE SUPDT. ENGINEER UPPER NARMADA
VALLEY DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, SATNA
DISTRICT SATNA (MADHYA PRADESH)
5. THE SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER RANI AWANTI BAI
SUB DIVN. NO.7 BARGI NAGAR JABALPUR
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA - PANEL LAWYER)
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: KOUSHALENDRA
SHARAN SHUKLA
Signing time: 04-03-2024
19:17:56
2
This petition coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
Petitioner's contention is that the petitioner is entitled to benefit of
minimum of regular pay scale as per 5th and 6th Pay commission
recommendations.
Petitioner's case is that the petitioner is working as a daily wage employee
in the officer of Executive Engineer, Narmada Valley Development Authority,
Division No.7 Satna. It is submitted that under the similar facts and
circumstances, Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 28.11.2023
passed in WP No.18053/2018 has allowed the petition in regard to one Santosh
Singh Baghel and directed for payment of minimum of regular pay scale as per
the 5th and 6th Pay Scales.
I have perused the said order and it is apparent from the said order that
Hon'ble Coordinate Bench has recorded a finding in the said order that the
petitioner was classified by order dated 07.10.2016 wherein it is mentioned that
the petitioner will be entitled to benefits according to the scheme mentioned in
that order.
In that background, after referring to the decision of the Supreme Court
in State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi (2006) 4 SCC 1 a question was raised in
paragraph 10 whether the petitioner was entitled to benefit of 5th and 6th Pay
Scales. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case
of State of Punjab and Others v. Jagjit Singh and Others, (2017) 1 SCC
148 wherein the Supreme Court has held that principle of equal pay for equal
work will be applicable to the all temporary employees concerned so to vest in
them the right to claim the benefit of wages on the par with the minimum of the
pay-scale payable to regularly engaged government employees holding the same
post.
Therefore, in the light of said judgment, two facts need to be clarified:
scheme of GAD dated 7.10.2016 is an exclusive scheme and it regulates the
services but it does not deal with regularisation of permanent classification of an
employee. Pay Scales are given in that scheme and that scheme is to be
regulated strictly in terms of what is mentioned in the circular dated 07.10.2016.
Beneficiaries of that scheme cannot claim benefit of minimum of regular pay
scales which is payable to permanently classified employees in terms of the
judgment of the Supreme Court in Ram Naresh Rawat Vs. Sri Ashwani Ray
[(2017) 3 SCC 436. Thus, the position is crystalised that permanent classified
employees are entitled to the minimum of regular pay scale without increment
but with DA.
However, the petitioner not being covered under the Scheme of
07.10.2016, he will be entitled to minimum of the pay-scale as has been held by
the Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana and Others v. Piara
Singh and Others, (1992) 4 SCC 118 and also in the case of Bharat
Darshan Shrivastava Vs. State of M.P., 1998 MPLSR 278.
Accordingly, this petition is disposed of with a direction to the
respondents to extend the benefit of minimum of the regular pay-scale from a
date three years prior to the date of filing of the writ petition when actual
benefits will be payable whereas notional fixation will be done from the date of
his initial appointment.
In the above terms, the petition is disposed of.
(VIVEK AGARWAL)
JUDGE
ks
