Madhya Pradesh High Court
Karulal vs Tribal Welfare Deparment on 2 April, 2025
Author: Vivek Rusia
Bench: Vivek Rusia
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:8845 -1-
WP No.1321/2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA
ON THE 2nd OF APRIL, 2025
WRIT PETITION No.1321 of 2020
KARULAL
Versus
TRIBAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Pravin Kumar Bhatt - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Amit Bhatia - GA for respondent/State.
ORDER
1. The petitioner, who has served the Tribal Welfare Department of
Madhya Pradesh, has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Con-
stitution of India, seeking the benefit of regular pay scale from the date of
completion of five years of continuous service.
2. The petitioner was appointed on the post of Chowkidar vide or-
der dated 19.6.1992. The grievance of the petitioner is that despite render-
ing long years of service, he has not been granted the regular pay scale
from the date of his entitlement.
3. The issue involved in this case has already been considered and
decided by this Court in the case of Asha Rathore vs. Tribal Welfare De-
partment and Others in W.P. No.7280/2018 dated 28.02.2025 and this
Court has granted the benefit of pay scale to the petitioner therein from
the date of her entitlement. The relevant contents of order dated
28.02.2025 are reproduced below:-
"9. The facts stated in the petition and the return are not in dispute.
The entire claim of the petitioners is based on the circular dated
17.3.1978 issued by the Finance Department, State of Madhya Pra-
desh.
10. By the aforesaid circular the doubts were clarified in respect
of implementation of the Madhya Pradesh Work Charge Contin-
gency Pay Fixation Rules, 1977 working in various government de-
partments. Earlier contingency paid employees were getting the
consolidated pay, therefore, from 1.1.1974 first time the pay scale
was fixed for the purpose of payment of salary/wages to them. As
per the answer to query No.6, these rules were made applicable to
the employees who were already in service. They were kept in two
categories - (1) the employees who have completed one year ser-
vice from 1.1.1974 were granted the benefit of revision of pay scale
and remaining employees were held entitled to get the benefit of
pay after completion of 5 years of service and continuity in the ser-
vice. Respondents have rejected the claim of the petitioners only on
the ground that this benefit of circular was made applicable to the
employees who were appointed prior to 1.1.1974 and since the peti-
tioners were appointed after 1.1.1974, therefore, they are not en-
titled for the benefit of circular dated 17.3.1978. The Clause 6 is re-
produced below:-.
";s fu;e dsoy mu deZpkfj;ksa dks gh ykxw gksaxs tks uohu lsok ds
lnL; gSa vFkok Hkfo"; esa bl lsok ds lnL; gksus ds ik= gksaxsA vFkkZr~
tks deZpkjh fnukad 1-1-74 dks ,d o"kZ dh lsok iw.kZ dj pqds gksaxs mUgs
iqujhf{kr osruekuksa dk ykHk izkIr gksxk vkSj vU; deZpkfj;ksa dks bu os -
ruekuksa dk ykHk rc izkIr gksxk tc os 5 o"kZ dh lsok iw.kZ dj pqdsaxs vkSj
lsok ds lnL; gksus ds ik= gksaxsA"
11. As discussed above, those employees who had completed one
year of service on 1.1.1974, they were granted the benefit and
second set of employees who were appointed after 1.1.1974 and
completed 5 years of service are claiming revised pay scale after
completion of 5 years service. The respondents further submitted in
the return that the Circular dated 17.3.1978 has been nullified vide
another circular issued by Finance Department dated 28.1.2014,
hence, it is no more applicable on daily rated employees. The afore-
said contention is liable to be rejected on the ground that before is-
suance of circular dated 28.1.2014, the right had already been ac-
crued in favour of the petitioners to get the benefit of circular dated
17.3.1978 and all these petitioners were appointed prior to
28.1.2014 as daily rated under the contingency paid establishment.
Therefore, the cancellation or superceding the Circular dated
17.3.1978 on later date cannot be a reason to deny the benefit to the
petitioners. The respondents cannot submit that the petitioners can-
not claim parity with Rewaram (WA No.355/2010 decided on
12.5.2014) and order dated 10.4.2014 passed in WA No.359/2010
(Kailash Chandra Vs. State of M.P. and others) on the ground that
the petitioners therein have been given benefit of regular pay scale
after completion of 5 years of service before 1.1.1974 and the peti-
tioner was appointed on 29.1.1993
12. As discussed above, the cut-off date 1.1.1974 was made ap-
plicable to those employees who were appointed prior to 1.1.1974
and they were given benefit of revision pay scale who had com-
pleted one year's service upto 1.1.1974, and for other employees
like petitioners the benefit is liable to be given after completion of 5
years of service. The petitioner was appointed on 29.1.1993 became
entitled to get benefit of new pay scale after completion of 5 years
of service i.e. in the year 1998. Earlier the petitioner had been
given the benefit of regular pay scale Rs.2550-3200 vide order
dated 10.7.2014 from the date of filing if writ petition i.e. 6.11.2012
relying on circular dated 17.3.1978. The petitioners challenged the
said order only on the ground that they were wrongly given the be-
nefit from the date of filing of petition, whereas they are entitled to
the benefit from the date of completion of 5 years of service. The
writ petition was disposed of by applying the judgment passed in
the case of Kailashchandra (supra)mutatis mutandis, but by the
impugned order dated 18.8.2017 they have not been held entitled to
get regular payscale. Therefore, benefit which had already been
given to them, was not directed to be withdrawn by this Court in
WP No.5528/2014. With the consent of parties, the petition was
disposed of by observing that the identical case has already been
decided by the Division Bench of this Court in WA No.359/2010
(Kailashchandra Vs. State of M.P.).
13. Shri Kailashchandra filed a Writ Appeal No.359/2010 which
came to be allowed vide order dated 10.4.2014 directing respond-
ents to verify and if it is found that the petitioner is identically
placed person, then the regular pay scale be given after completion
of 5 years of service with all consequential benefits. In the light of
the aforesaid judgment, the claim of the petitioner was considered
and the benefit of regular pay scale was given from the date of fil-
ing petition 6.11.2012. Relevant para is reproduced below:-
"vr% 'kklu funsZ'kkuqlkj ,oa xfBr lfefr dh vuq'kalk ,oa dysDVj
egksn; ds vuqeksnu vuqlkj ekuuh; U;k;ky; [k.MihB bankSj }kjk ikfjr
fu.kZ; ds ikyu esa ;kfpdkdrkZ dq- vk'kk jkBkSj Hk`R; nSfud osruHkksxh
deZpkjh dks e-iz- 'kklu foRr foHkkx ds Kkiu dzekad
Mh&302@95@fu&1@4@78 fnukad 17-03-78 dh dafMdk &6 vuqlkj dq-
vk'kk jkBkSj Hk`R; nSfud osruHkksxh deZpkjh dh izFke fu;qfDr fnukad 29-
01-1993 gksus ds dkj.k lsok esa 05 o"kZ dh vof/k iw.kZ djus ds fnukad 29-
01-1998 ls dk;ZHkkfjr ,oa vkdfLedrk fu/kh lsok dh LFkkiuk esa inLFk
fd;k tkdj uSesfrd en esa osrueku 2550&3200 esa :i;s 2550@& osru
,oa 'kklu }kjk izpfyr egaxkbZ HkRrk fn;s tkus dh Lohd`fr ekuuh; lok-
sZPp U;k;ky; ,oa mPp U;k;ky; esa fopkjk/khu dze'k% ,l0,y0ih0@fjV
vihy@ fjO;w ;kfpdkvksa esa gksus okys fu.kZ; ds v/;/khu iznku dh tkrh
gSaA ekuuh; U;k;ky; ds fu.kZ; vuqlkj ;kfpdkdrkZ dks osrueku dk ok-
Lrfod ykHk fjV ;kfpdk izLrqr fd;s tkus ds fnukad 6-11-2012 ls ns;
gksxkA
mDr Lohd`fr vkns'k ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; [k.MihB bUnkSj }kjk
izdj.k dzekad WP 10615@2012 (s) esa ikfjr fu.kZ; ds lanHkZ ek= dq-
vk'kk jkBkSj nSfud osruHkksxh deZpkjh ds fy, tkjh fd;k tk jgk gSA ;g
Lohd`fr fdlh vU; izdj.k esa mnkgj.k Lo:i ekU; ugha gksxhA"
14. Again the petitioner approached this Court by filing WP
No.5528/2014 and the writ petition was allowed by following or-
der:-
"Keeping in view the above undisputed position, the present writ
petition is disposed of by holding that the directions issued in the
matter of Kailash Chandra (supra) by the Division Bench of this
Court will apply mutatis mutandis in the present case and the re-
spondent will examine the petitioner's case in the light of the afore-
said directions within a period of three months from the date of re-
ceipt of certified copy of this order."
15. Therefore, a writ of mandamus was issued to the respondents
to treat the petitioner at par with Kailash Chandra for grant of bene-
fit of regular pay scale from the date of initial appointment, the re-
spondents malafidely passed the wrong order dated 18.8.2017 to
deny the legitimate claim of the petitioner, despite several orders
passed by this Court.
16. Therefore, the writ petition is allowed. Order dated 18.8.2017
is hereby set aside. The petitioner be given the benefit of regular
pay scale after completion of 5 years service from the date of initial
appointment in view of the circular dated 17.3.1978. All the con-
sequential benefits be also given to the petitioner. The order passed
by the Collector, Barwani is set aside with a cost of Rs.20,000/-.
The cost is imposed for the reason that unnecessarily the Collector
has compelled all these petitioners to approach this Court and there-
after up to the Supreme Court".
4. In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed. The petitioner
be given the benefit of regular pay scale after completion of 5 years ser-
vice from the date of initial appointment in view of the circular dated
17.03.1978. All the consequential benefits be also given to the petitioner.
(VIVEK RUSIA)
JUDGE
trilok/-
