Madhya Pradesh High Court
Bhagwandas Sahu vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 15 May, 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 15 th OF MAY, 2024
WRIT PETITION No. 12274 of 2024
BETWEEN:-
BHAGWANDAS SAHU S/O LATE SHRI SHIVPRASAD
SAHU, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, OCCUPATION: RETIRED
DRESSER FROM THE OFFICE OF CHIEF MEDICAL AND
HEALTH OFFICER SAGAR DISTRICT SAGAR R/O WARD
NO 15 HOSPITAL COLONY SHAHGARH TEHSIL
SHAHGARH DISTRICT SAGAR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI MANOJ CHANSORIYA - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH ITS
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY PUBLIC HELATH AND
FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT MINISTRY
VALLABH BHAWAN BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. JOINT DIRECTOR TREASURY ACCOUNTS AND
PEN S ION SAGAR DIVISION SAGAR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
3. CHIEF MEDICAL AND HEALTH OFFICER SAGAR
DISTRICT SAGAR (MADHYA PRADESH)
4. DISTRICT TREASURY/PENSION OFFICER SAGAR
DISTRICT SAGAR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI DARSHAN SONI - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)
This petition coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
Petitioner's case is that he is the person who is employed in the Work
Charged and Contingency Paid Establishment on Class-IV post and he has
been denied benefit of Kramonnati.
2. It is submitted that petitioner's case is squarely covered by decision of a
Coordinate Bench given in Writ Petition No.5277/2014 (S) [Man Singh
Thakur Vs. State of M.P. and others], wherein vide order dated 17.04.2014,
placing reliance on the judgment of Tejulal Yadav Vs. State of M.P. and
others (W.P.No.11507/2007, decided on 23.01.2009) , who was working as
Hostel Peon in Government Mahila Polytechnic College, Jabalpur, the
Coordinate Bench directed that even the employees who were working in the
Work Charged and Contingency Paid Establishment are entitled to benefit of
Kramonnati and they cannot be discriminated.
3. Reliance is also placed on the judgment of this High Court in K.L. Asre Vs.
State of Madhya Pradesh and others, decided on 07.11.2005 in the following
terms :
"11. The principles laid down in the case of Shri K.L. Asre
(supra) has been made applicable to time keepers, working in
the work charged and contingency paid establishment. If time
keepers and drivers in the work charged establishment are
entitled to promotion under the time bound scheme, there is no
reason as to why the said benefit be not extended to other
employees constituting the same class in the work charged and
contingency paid establishment. The policy is made
applicable to drivers of this establishment and the reason for
not making the said policy applicable to other categories of the
work charged and contingency paid establishment is not
indicated in the return. No reason is given as to why a
different policy is being adopted in the case of other
employees in the work charged and contingency paid
establishment and the benefit granted to drivers in the said
establishment is not extended to other employees like the
petitioner. Respondents being a State has to give similar
benefit to employees similarly situated and forming a common
class. They may be justified in granting some additional
benefit to some of the employees in comparison to others, but
the justification and reasons for such a classification has to
meet the test of Article 14 of the Constitution and the decision
has to be reasonable, fair and justified by cogent reasons and
relevant considerations. Except for contending that the Policy
is not applicable to employees working in the work charged
and contingency paid establishment, no justification is
forthcoming from the respondents with regard to further
classification amongst the employees working in the work
charged and contingency paid establishment with regard to
implementation of the policy Annx.P/3 and P/4. when the
employees working in the work charged and contingency paid
establishment constitute a common class, all benefits which are
extended to one set of employees namely drivers as per the
policy and the time keepers in the light of the judgment in the
case of K.L. Asre (supra), has to be granted by the respondents
to the present petitioners also. In the absence of proper
justification for adopting a different policy and cogent reason
given justifying the reasonableness in the classification and
differentiation done fulfilling the requirement of Article 14 of
the Constitution, discrimination cannot be permitted. Parity in
employment is required to be maintained and, therefore,
keeping in view the circumstances and the action of the
respondents in adopting a pick and choose method violative of
Article 14 of the Constitution in the case of employees who
form a homogeneous class, the action discriminatory in nature
cannot be upheld by this Court."
4. It is submitted that Writ Appeal No.966/2009, was decided on
27.10.2009, wherein, order passed in case of Tejulal (supra) was put to
challenge. That Writ Appeal was dismissed on merits and this order was
affirmed in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil): (CC) 14582/2010.
5. Similarly, it is pointed out that Writ Appeal filed by the State against the
order dated 17.04.2014 passed in writ Petition was dismissed vide order dated
04.05.2016.
6. It is submitted that the case of the petitioners being squarely covered by the
ratio of law laid down by the High Court in Tejulal, K.L. Asre and Man
Singh Thakur (supra), petition deserves to be allowed.
7. Shri Darshan Soni, learned Government Advocate, is not in a position to
take any exception to the settled legal position that employees working under
the M.P. Work Charged and Contingency Paid Establishment are entitled to
grant of Kramonnati/Time Scale of Pay.
8. Accordingly, this petition is allowed and disposed of directing the
respondents to grant benefit of Kramonnati/Time Scale of Pay within thirty days
of receipt of certified copy of the order, with further stipulation that actual
monetary benefits be extended within a further period of sixty days, otherwise it
will earn interest @ 9% per annum from the expiry of aforesaid period, till the
date of its actual payment.
(VIVEK AGARWAL)
JUDGE
ks
