Madhya Pradesh High Court
Narayan Singh Rawat vs State Of M.P. on 6 August, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:16816
1 WP-13197-2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ASHISH SHROTI
ON THE 6 th OF AUGUST, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 13197 of 2022
NARAYAN SINGH RAWAT
Versus
STATE OF M.P. AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Mr. Bhanu Prakash Singh - Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. N.K. Gupta - GA for the State.
ORDER
The petitioner has filed this petition challenging the order dated 16.09.2020,
whereby he has been granted first and second time scale of pay w.e.f. 01.01.2016.
The petitioner has also prayed for a direction to the respondents to grant him up
gradation of pay scale on completion of 12 years and 20 years of service as per the
Government policy and the law laid down by this Court in the case of K.L. Asre
Vs. State of M.P. & others (W.P.No.1070/2003).
2. The facts necessary for decision of this case are that the petitioner was
given regular appointment on the post of Pump Attendant on 11.05.1994
(Annexure P/2). In the year 1999, the State Government formulated a policy for
grant of kramonnati on completion of 12 years and 20 years of service.
Subsequently, vide circular dated 24.01.2008 (Annexure P/5), a new policy
providing for grant of first and second time scale of pay on completion of 10 years
and 20 years of service respectively was formulated by the State Government.
These benefits are not extended to the petitioner, on the ground that he is an
employee under work charge and contingency establishment. The petitioner filed
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:16816
2 WP-13197-2022
the present writ petition. During the pendency of this petition, the respondents
have passed the order, dated 25.11.2022 (Annexure R/1), whereby the petitioner
has been extended the benefit of first time scale of pay and second time scale of
pay in the Pay Band of 5200 - 20200 + 1900 GP and 5200 - 20200 + 2100 GP
respectively. However, the aforesaid benefit has been extended w.e.f. 01.01.2016.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that pursuant to the
kramonati scheme of 1999, the petitioner was entitled to the benefit of first
kramonati on completion of 12 years of service on 11.05.2006. He further
submitted that pursuant to the subsequent policy issued vide circular, dated
24.01.2008 (Annexure P/5), the petitioner was entitled to second time scale of pay
on completion of 20 years of service i.e. 11.05.2014. Thus, the grant of benefit
with effect from 01.01.2016 vide order, dated 25.11.2022, is not in consonance
with the policies by the State Government. The learned counsel for the petitioner
also submitted that the petitioner, being an employee in work charge and
contingency establishment, is entitled to the similar treatment like an employee in
the regular establishment, in view of the law laid down by this Court in the case of
K.L. Asre (supra). The same legal principle was reiterated by the Division Bench
of this Court in the case of State of M.P. Vs. Anil Kumar Garg & others in W.A.
No.912/2015 (Annexure P/9). He thus submitted that the petitioner is entitled to
the benefit of first kramonati w.e.f. 11.05.2006 and the benefit of second time
scale of pay w.e.f. 11.05.2014.
4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents opposed the
prayer and submitted that the benefit as permissible under the policy of the State
Government has already been extended to the petitioner vide order, dated
25.11.2022, and no further indulgence is warranted.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:16816
3 WP-13197-2022
5. Considered the arguments and perused the record.
6. Earlier, the employees working in work charge and contingency
established were not extended the benefit of time bound promotion scheme. This
was challenged before this Court in Tejulal Yadav vs. State of M.P. &
ors. reported in 2009 SCC Online MP 860 . Relying upon earlier order passed in
the case of K.L. Asre (supra), this Court held as under:
"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 - Annexure
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:16816
4 WP-13197-2022
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
o f 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
homogenous class, the action discriminatory in nature cannot be upheld
by this Court.
12. Keeping in view the aforesaid, the respondents are directed to
extend the benefit of promotion in accordance with the aforesaid
scheme to the petitioner and after evaluating his case in accordance
with the requirements of the said scheme, grant benefit to the petitioner.
In case the petitioner is found entitled then necessary orders in this
regard be passed within a period of 03 months."
7. The aforesaid legal principle was approved by Division Bench in the case
o f State of M.P. & ors. vs. Anil Kumar Garg & ors . (W.A.No.912/2015). The
similar issue has been considered by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the
case of Anil Kumar Shivhare Vs. State of M.P. & others (W.P.No.18358/2023),
wherein the Court has held as under :
"5. Considering the submissions made by counsel for the parties, this
petition is disposed of with a direction that the petitioner is also entitled
for the same benefit as other similarly placed employees like Tejulal
Yadav, K. L. Asre and Gendalal, etc. (petitioners in Writ Petition
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:16816
5 WP-13197-2022
No.461/2018) and the judgment passed in those orders would apply
mutatis mutandis in the case of petitioner. He shall be entitled for
monetary benefits and arrears for the said period. Exercise of passing an
appropriate order granting the benefit be concluded within a period of
six months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order."
8. The similar view is reiterated by this Court in the case of
W.P.No.21104/2024.
9. Considering the aforesaid, since the issue involved in this case is no
more res integra, the claim made by the petitioner is liable to be accepted.
10. Accordingly, this petition is disposed of with the direction to the
respondents to extend the benefit of kramonnati/time scale of pay from the date it
became due to the petitioner on completion of 12 years and 20 years of service.
Needless to mention, conferral of aforesaid benefit to the petitioner is subject to
his satisfying other requisite conditions.
(ASHISH SHROTI)
JUDGE
bj/-
