Madhya Pradesh High Court
Bhaiyaram Yadav vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 29 August, 2025
1 WP-41040-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN
ON THE 29th OF AUGUST, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 40944 of 2024
SURENDRA KUMAR BALMIKI
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WITH
WRIT PETITION No. 40934 of 2024
BABLOO SWEEPER
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 40938 of 2024
PREM NARAYAN VISHWAKARMA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 40941 of 2024
OMPRAKASH BALMIKI
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 40943 of 2024
RAMESH PRASAD SAHU
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 40950 of 2024
SITARAM BAROLIYA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RASHMI
RONALD VICTOR
Signing time: 30-08-2025
12:56:21
2 WP-41040-2024
WRIT PETITION No. 40953 of 2024
KOMAL PRASAD PRAJAPATI
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 40955 of 2024
MAKKHAN LAL BALMIKI
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 41040 of 2024
BHAIYARAM YADAV
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 2759 of 2025
RAGHUVEER YADAV
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 16689 of 2025
SWAMI PRASAD LODHI
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri M.K. Chansauriya, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Hitendra Singh, learned Government Advocate for respondent/State.
ORDER
Petitioners' case is that they are the persons who are employed in the
Work Charged and Contingency Paid Establishment on Class-IV post and
they have been denied benefit of Kramonnati.
2. It is submitted that petitioners' case is squarely covered by
decision of a Coordinate Bench given in Writ Petition No.5277/2014 (S)
3 WP-41040-2024
[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
4 WP-41040-2024
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
5 WP-41040-2024
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 Hitendra Singh, learned Government Advocate has
vehemently opposed the petitions on the anvil of circular dated 21/09/2016,
whereby the benefit of time bound upgradation has been extended to
members of Work Charged and Contingency Paid Establishment from
01/01/2016.
8. However, even that position has been considered by a Coordinate
Bench of this Court in WP No.461/2018 decided at Indore (Gendalal and
others Vs. State of M.P. and others), whereby the Coordinate Bench has even
considered the effect of circular dated 21/09/2016 and has category held that
the said circular would not dilute the judgment of this Court in K.L. Asre
(supra) and Tejulal Yadav (supra) and would not curtail the right of the Work
Charged and Contingency Paid employees to claim financial
upgradation/kramannoti. The Coordinate Bench held the employees in such
establishment to be entitled for kramonnati from date of completion of
requisite years of service even prior to 01/01/2016.
6 WP-41040-2024
9. 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 @ 6% per annum from the expiry of aforesaid
period of 90 days, till the date of actual payment.
(VIVEK JAIN)
JUDGE
RS
