Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rambeti vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 5 February, 2025
Author: Anil Verma
Bench: Anil Verma
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:2352
1 WP-2697-2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL VERMA
ON THE 5 th OF FEBRUARY, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 2697 of 2020
RAMBETI
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Devesh Sharma - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Sanjay Singh Kushwaha - GA for respondents/State.
ORDER
With the consent of the parties, matter is heard finally.
Petitioner has preferred this petition under Article 226 of Constitution
of India seeking for following reliefs :-
"7.1 That, the impugned action and order of respondents dt.
28.4.2017 Annexure P/1 may kindly be declared as illegal and the
same may kindly be quashed.
7.2 That, a direction may kindly be given to the respondents
to give the service benefit and regular/minimum pay scale of the
post of the permanent classified stayee gang from the date of her
classification as permanent employee w.e.f. 01.06.1995 to the
petitioner, and pay the difference of arrears on fixation of pay
from the date of classification along with interest.
7.3 That, respondent may further be directed to treat the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:2352
2 WP-2697-2020
petitioner at per with his similarly placed co-employees with
seniority and consequential benefits on the post of stayee Gang
from the date of her classification 01.06.1995.
7.5 That, any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court may
deem fit and proper may also be given to the petitioner along with
costs."
Brief facts of the case are that petitioner was appointed as a Daily
Wage Employee w.e.f. 01/02/1994 in the respondent department on the post
of Labour and he has been declared as classified as permanent employee on
the post of Sthai Gang by respondents vide order dated 31.12.2004(Annexure
P-2) after completion of 240 days working days satisfactorily w.e.f.
01.06.1995. Her name is mentioned at serial No.42 in the said order. But, the
petitioner was not paid the regular/minimum pay scale from the date of her
classification on the post of Sthai Gang and minimum pay scale and other
benefits.The issue regarding classification has been settled by decision of
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ramnaresh Rawat Vs. Ashwini Ray &
Others, (2017) 3 SCC 436 but respondents are not giving benefit of regular
minimum pay scale to the petitioner and other benefits to the petitioner. In
the earlier round of litigation, petitioner has preferred WP
No.5436/2015(Annexure P-3), which has been decided vide order dated
18.8.2018 and the Court directed the respondents to decide representation
filed by petitioner within a stipulated period and also grant increment
attached to the pay scale but thereafter, he filed contempt petition but
respondents have not complied with the order passed by this Court and not
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:2352
3 WP-2697-2020
paid minimum pay scale to the petitioner from the date of his classification.
Being aggrieved by the same, petitioner has preferred this petition.
Learned counsel for respondents/State opposes prayer and prays for its
rejection by submitting in their reply that petitioner is not entitled for
regularization and other benefits as per the law laid down in the case of Ram
Naresh Rawat (supra). Petitioner has been rightly extended benefit of policy
dated 7.10.2016. This petition is misconceived and deserves to be dismissed.
Heard both the parties and the entire record with due care.
The issue with regard to entitlement of minimum pay scale of being
classified as permanent employee has been put to rest by this Court in WP
No.5855/2016 which has been affirmed in WA No.1139/2018 and thereafter,
SLP has already been dismissed. In such circumstances, petitioner is entitled
for grant of minimum of the pay scale.
Having regard to the aforesaid and taking note of the judgment of the
Supreme Court in the matter of Ram Naresh Rawat Vs. Ashiwini Ray and
others, (2017) 3 SCC 436 the petitioner is only entitled to the minimum of
the pay scale on being classified as permanent employee.
Therefore, on the basis of the aforesaid, petitioner is not entitled for
regularization in service, regular pay scale making member of GPF and other
consequential benefits.
Hence, to the aforesaid extent, present petition is partly allowed
directing the respondents to grant minimum pay scale to the petitioner from
the date of his classification i.e. 01.06.1995 as classified employee within a
period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:2352
4 WP-2697-2020
Petitioner is not entitled for any other relief.
To the aforesaid extent, this petition is partly allowed and disposed of.
No order as to cost(s).
(ANIL VERMA)
JUDGE
Vishal
