Madhya Pradesh High Court
Dilip Kumar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 1 May, 2024
Author: Vivek Rusia
Bench: Vivek Rusia
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA
ON THE 1 st OF MAY, 2024
WRIT PETITION No. 11160 of 2024
BETWEEN:-
1. DILIP KUMAR S/O LATE SHRI RAMLAL JI
MALVIYA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
SERVICE JUNA SOMWARIYA, BANNAGHAR,
DISTRICT UJJAIN (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. GOPAL S/O LATE SHRI JAGANNATH JI
DHADERWAL, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: SERVICE JUNA SOMVARIYA,
DISTRICT UJJAIN (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONERS
(BY SHRI MANISH YADAV, ADVOCATE.)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH ITS
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY HIGHER EDUCATION
DEPARTMENT MANTRALAYA, VALLABH
BHAWAN, BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. COMMISSIONER HIGHER EDUCATION
D EPARTM EN T SATPURA BHAWAN, BHOPAL
(MADHYA PRADESH)
3. ADD. DIRECTOR HIGHER EDUCATION
D EPARTM EN T UJJAIN DIVISION, DISTRICT
INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
4. R E G I S T R A R VIKRAM UNIVERSITY, UJJAIN
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(RESPONDENT / STATE BY MS. PRANJALI YAJURVEDI, PANEL LAWYER.)
T h is petition coming on for orders this day, t h e cou rt passed the
following:
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: DIVYANSH
SHUKLA
Signing time: 01-05-2024
18:41:23
2
ORDER
01. This petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India seeking the following reliefs:-
"(a). It is therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to direct
the respondents to grant the benefit of 7th pay commission.
(b). It is therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to direct
the respondents to extent the benefit as Similar situated petitioners in W.P.
No.21906/2022 on 26/09/2022 Granted benefit of 7th pay and as per other
similar order annexed in this petition.
(c) Any other writ direction or orders which this Hon'ble Court may deem
fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.
(d). Costs of the proceedings."
02. Counsel for the petitioners submits that the issue involved in this
petition has already been decided by a co-ordinate bench of this Court at
Indore Bench in Writ Petition No.11122 of 2018 in the case of Gulab
Prakash Tiwari & others v. The State of Madhya Pradesh and others on
29.08.2019 (At page 21). The aforesaid order reads thus:-
"10. The respondents in their reply has stated that the Rules of 2017 are not
applicable to the petitioners as they are not the regular employees of the State
Government. The said arguments were raised by the petitioners in the judgment
o f Kishorilal Prajapati & Ors (supra), passed by this Court, which was
maintained upto the Supreme Court. In Para- 6 and 7 of the said judgment, this
Court has held as under: -
"6. The principle of classification of an employee on a post,
as is envisaged in the Industrial Law is very simple. If an
employee is said to have remained working in one calender
year for 240 days or more on one post, he is said to be
entitled for classification on the said post. If the persons
like petitioners are continuing, it is very clear that the work
is available. If the work is available and the posts are
already sanctioned, the petitioners are said to be classified
on the said post on account of their continuous long
working for 20 or more years. Thus, the stand taken by the
respondents that the petitioners would not be entitled to
minimum of the pay scale of the post against which they are
working, cannot be accepted. The factual aspect is
distinguishable than that of the facts in the case of M.P
Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd. (supra). The very same principle
would not be attracted in the present case.
7. If the persons like petitioners were granted the benefit of
minimum of the pay scale with the allowances, applicable
on the post on which they are working, how could it be said
that they will not be entitled to the revision of the pay scale
if the pay of the said post is revised by the State
Government accepting the recommendation of the Sixth Pay
Commission. The order of the Tribunal is clear. It nowhere
says that the persons like petitioners would be entitled to
only minimum of the pay scale as is prevalent on the date
and they will never get benefit of revision of the pay scale.
The only rider put by the Tribunal is that the petitioners
would not get the increments of pay. This being so, the
respondents are bound to extend the benefit of revision of
the pay, applicable to the post on which the petitioners are
working. Consequently, the petitioners will get the benefit
of minimum of the revised pay scale and allowances of the
posts against which they are working, as has been accepted
by the State Government on the basis of recommendation of
the Sixth Pay Commission. The same would be applicable to
the persons like petitioners from the date the revision of
pay scale has been done. The admissible amount is to be
calculated and is to be paid to the petitioners."
11. That, in the present case also the petitioners are working for 20 or more
than 20 years and they are continuing on their post which shows that the work is
available and the posts are already sanctioned. The petitioners are performing
their work as that of regular employees and, therefore, the same analogy which
has been made applicable by this Court in the case of Kishorilal Prajapati
(supra) would be applicable in the present case also. Thus, the action of the
respondents in not extending the benefit of 7th Pay Commission to the
employees is per se illegal and discriminatory.
1 2 . Resultantly, the writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to
grant the benefit of revision of pay scale on the recommendation of 7th Pay
Commission to the petitioners and the respondents are further directed to pay
arrears of salary to the petitioners within a period of three months from the
date of certified copy of the order passed today."
03. Counsel for the respondents / State, on the other hand, has fairly
submitted the issue has already been decided by this Court. Hence, appropriate
orders be passed.
04. Having regard to the submissions made by the counsel for the parties,
the present petition stands allowed and it is directed that the decision rendered
by this Court in the case of Gulab Prakash Tiwari & others v. The State of
Madhya Pradesh and others (supra) will apply mutatis mutandis in the
present case also. The respondents are directed to grant the benefit of revision
of pay scale on the recommendation of 7th Pay Commission to the petitioners
and the respondents are further directed to pay arrears of salary to the
petitioners within a period of three months from the date of receipt of
certified copy of the order passed today.
(VIVEK RUSIA)
JUDGE
Divyansh
