Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rajesh Tripathi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 6 February, 2025
Author: Anil Verma
Bench: Anil Verma
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:2445
1 WP-18076-2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL VERMA
ON THE 6 th OF FEBRUARY, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 18076 of 2020
RAJESH TRIPATHI
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Devesh Sharma - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Dilip Awasthi - Government Advocate for the respondents/State.
ORDER
Petitioner has preferred this petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India seeking following reliefs:
"7.1 That, the impugned action and order of respondent no.
4 dt.20/03/2020 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 regular pay scale with increment of the post of the
permanent classified Chlorine Operator w.e.f. 01/01/2004 in the
regular establishment and contingency establishment And pay the
arrears of salary on fixation of pay along with all consequence
benefits with interest from the aforesaid date.
7.3 That, a direction may kindly be given to the respondents
to regularize the petitioner in the regular establishment.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:2445
2 WP-18076-2020
7.4 That, the respondents may further be directed to treat the
petitioner at par with their similarly placed co-employees with
seniority and consequential benefits on the post of Chlorine
Operator from the date of his Classification.
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."
2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as daily
wage employee on the post of Chlorine Operator in the respondents
department on 27.1.1992. He filed a case for regular pay scale and arrears of
salary before the Labour Court and same has been allowed vide order dated
6.9.1999 and respondents were directed to pay regular pay scale to the
petitioner w.e.f. 23.5.1993. Respondents preferred an appeal before Industrial
Court and same has also been disposed of vide order dated 1.11.2002.
Executive Engineer issued an official order dated 14.1.2005 and classified 60
employees including the petitioner and petitioner has been declared as a
classified permanent employee on the post of Chlorine Operator vide order
dated 14.1.2005 passed by respondent No.4 after completion of 240 days
satisfactory service. Petitioner preferred a W.P.No.329/2010 for regular pay
scale and arrears of salary from the date of his classification and same has
been allowed by this Court vide order dated 18.5.2011. Thereafter, petitioner
filed a Review Petition No.140/2011, which has been allowed and liberty is
granted to the petitioner to take steps for execution of the orders passed by
the Labour Court. Thereafter, State preferred W.A.No.544/2012 and same
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:2445
3 WP-18076-2020
has been disposed of vide order dated 3.4.2013. The petitioner preferred a
suit for RRC before the Labour Court, which has been allowed vide order
dated 22.12.2011. Thereafter the respondents made a payment to the
petitioner with increment, DA, HRA, CCA on 13.10.2013.
3. Brief facts of the petitioner is further that he preferred an application
of RRC before the Labour Court which has been allowed vide order dated
10.8.2015 and 18.5.2016. Respondents did not challenge the order dated
6.9.1999 passed by the Labour Court and the order dated 1.11.2002 passed
by the Industrial Court. Hence, both the orders attained finality. Thereafter,
he filed an application under RTI Act in the office of Engineer-in-Chief,
Bhopal to get information about the case in 2020. The Engineer-in-Chief,
Bhopal had sent a notice to Principal Secretary PHED, Bhopal to approve the
case of the petitioner after opinion of Government Advocate. Thereafter,
respondents passed the impugned order (Annexure P/1), by which he was not
given regular pay scale with increment from 1.4.2004 which is violation of
order passed by the Labour Court and the Industrial Court. Respondents
deliberately relied upon the judgment of Apex Court in the case of
Ramnaresh Rawat vs. Ashwani Rai & Ors. reported in (2017) 3 SCC 436 but
decision of Ramnaresh Rawat (supra) was pronounced on 15.12.2016 and the
ratio was not in existence of the salary stood adjudicated not only by the
Labour Court, therefore, the case of Ramnaresh Rawat (supra) will not
applicable in the case of the petitioner. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid,
petitioner has preferred the present petition.
4. Per contra, counsel for the respondents opposed the prayer and
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:2445
4 WP-18076-2020
prayed for its rejection by submitting in their return that if the petitioner is
aggrieved by non-payment of RRC issued by the Labour Court, he should
approach to the Revenue Authority or concerned Labour Court for its
execution. Petitioner has not exhausted the alternative remedy available to
him, therefore, petition deserves to be dismissed being premature. Rights of
the petitioner have been secured and petitioner has duly been paid amount of
Rs.473575/- and Rs.288320/- according to norms. Petitioner suppressed
material facts that he was already given arrears and other monetary benefit.
Impugned order (Annexure P/1) is just and proper. Petition is totally
misconceived, devoid of merit, substance, also not maintainable and deserves
to be dismissed.
5. Petitioner filed rejoinder by submitting that he was not given all the
benefits as per the order passed by the Labour Court, which was attained
finality and not challenged before the High Court, hence he is entitled for
regular pay scale with increment and other benefits which has been given by
the Labour Court. The reply filed by the respondents is misconceived.
6. Per contra, counsel for the respondents opposed the prayer and
prayed for its rejecting by submitting in their additional reply that petitioner
seeks multiple relief in one petition, which is not permissible, therefore, the
petition become infructuous and liable to be dismissed. Right of the
petitioner has been secured and he has been paid amount as per the rules.
Petition is full of ambiguity and does not have any merit and deserves to be
dismissed.
7. Heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the entire
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:2445
5 WP-18076-2020
record with due care.
8. Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the orders passed by the
Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the cases of Smt. Prem Bai vs. State of
M.P. & Ors. order dated 10.1.2025 (W.P.No.247/2025), Rajkumar Bhatnagar
vs. State of M.P. & Ors. order dated 23.2.2022 (W.A.
No.597/2020), Raghuvir Singh vs. State of M.P. & Ors. order dated
28.2.2019 (W.P.No.8490/2016), State of M.P. vs. Govind Bihari Saxena
order dated 28.2.2023 (W.P.No.11475/2021) and State of M.P. vs. Dinesh
Kumar Sharma order dated 8.8.2018 (W.P.No.5553/2016).
9. In the instant case, main issue is that whether on the basis of
classification as a permanent employee petitioner is entitled for
regularization in service, seniority and regular pay scale.
10. Undoubtedly the petitioner was initially employed as daily wage
employee. He has already filed a petition before the Labour Court and the
Labour Court has directed the respondents to pay regular pay scale to the
petitioner w.e.f. 23.5.1993 and same has been upheld by Appellate
Court/Industrial Court. It is clear that petitioner is aggrieved by non-payment
of RRC issued by the Labour Court but the High Court is not the Executing
Court of the order passed by the Labour Court. If the petitioner is aggrieved
with non-payment of RRC issued by the Labour Court he should approach
the Revenue Authorities having competent jurisdiction or concerned Labour
Court for its proper and effective execution but petitioner has not exhausted
the aforesaid alternative and efficacious remedy available to him, hence no
case is made out for issuing any direction for implementation of the order
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:2445
6 WP-18076-2020
passed by the Labour Court.
11. Thus, it is evident that till the regularization, petitioner was not a
regular employee, therefore, he is not entitled for pay as defined in
Fundamental Rule 22-A. Thus, before regularization, petitioner is not entitled
to regular pay scale. Even otherwise, claiming benefit of arrears of pay
starting from the order passed by the Labour Court till its realization which is
also barred by limitation in the law laid down by Apex Court in the case of
M.R. Gupta vs. Union of India & Ors. reported in (1995) 5 SCC 628 .
12. So far as the issue of seniority is concerned, which is assigned
amongst employees similarly situated, the Supreme Court in the case of State
of Punjab Vs. Joginder Singh reported in AIR 1963 SC 913 at page 921 has
held that seniority is comparative or relative concept. The comparison has to
be between employees who are equally circumstanced, if the employees
belong to two distinct classes, the question of inter se seniority between the
members of such distinct classes cannot arise
13. In the instant case, petitioner was appointed as a daily wage
employee and his services has been regularized w.e.f. 22.9.1993 as per the
order (Annexure P/4) on the post of Chlorine Operator. It is also noteworthy
that petitioner has not challenged the order (Annexure P/4), therefore, it
attained finality and it is binding upon the petitioner. Even otherwise, the
object of assigning seniority is to provide an opportunity of advancement to
the State employee as held in the case of Council of Scientific and Industrial
Research and another Vs. K.G.S. Bhatt and another reported in AIR 1989 SC
1972. Thus, when daily wagers are not entitled to any promotional
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:2445
7 WP-18076-2020
opportunity, claiming seniority from the date of their initial appointment will
vitiate the object of assigning seniority and, therefore, on that ground also, no
indulgence can be shown to grant seniority to the petitioner from the date of
his initial appointment as a daily wager.
14. Even otherwise, the respondent has duly paid the amount of
Rs.473575/- and Rs.288320/ in accordance with his entitlement vide order
Annexure P/1, therefore, petitioner is not entitled for any other relief.
15. In view of aforesaid law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court that
since the petitioner cannot claim seniority admissible to a daily wager,
petitioner is not entitled for seniority, therefore, claim of the petitioner for
seniority along with other consequential benefits deserves to be dismissed
and is hereby rejected.
16. Accordingly, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed.
(ANIL VERMA)
JUDGE
(alok)
