Madhya Pradesh High Court
Tulsi Bai vs Tribal Welfare Department on 28 February, 2025
Author: Vivek Rusia
Bench: Vivek Rusia
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:5195 -1-
WP No.7280/2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA
ON THE 28th OF FEBRUARY, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 7280 of 2018
ASHA RATHORE
Versus
TRIBAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Dwarka Sawale - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Kushal Goyal - Dy. A.G. for respondents/State.
WITH
WRIT PETITION No. 5310 of 2018
MADHUKAR KHERNAR
Versus
TRIBAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Rahul Sethi - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Kushal Goyal - Dy. A.G. for respondents/State.
WRIT PETITION No. 6434 of 2018
BABULAL KOGLE
Versus
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: TRILOK SINGH
SAVNER
Signing time: 28-02-2025
18:43:55
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:5195 -2-
WP No.7280/2018
TRIBAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Rahul Sethi - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Kushal Goyal - Dy. A.G. for respondents/State.
WRIT PETITION No. 6688 of 2018
NIRMALA BAI NAHAR
Versus
TRIBAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Rahul Sethi - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Kushal Goyal - Dy. A.G. for respondents/State.
WRIT PETITION No. 7285 of 2018
FAZAL REHMAN SHEIKH
Versus
TRIBAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Rahul Sethi - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Kushal Goyal - Dy. A.G. for respondents/State.
WRIT PETITION No. 7319 of 2018
LALITA SHARMA
Versus
TRIBAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT AND OTHERS
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: TRILOK SINGH
SAVNER
Signing time: 28-02-2025
18:43:55
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:5195 -3-
WP No.7280/2018
Appearance:
Shri Rahul Sethi - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Kushal Goyal - Dy. A.G. for respondents/State.
WRIT PETITION No. 7673 of 2018
PUNI BAI
Versus
TRIBAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Rahul Sethi - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Kushal Goyal - Dy. A.G. for respondents/State.
WRIT PETITION No. 8333 of 2018
SUNIL KUMAR
Versus
TRIBAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Rahul Sethi - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Kushal Goyal - Dy. A.G. for respondents/State.
WRIT PETITION No. 8386 of 2018
JAGDISH YADAV
Versus
TRIBAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT AND OTHERS
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: TRILOK SINGH
SAVNER
Signing time: 28-02-2025
18:43:55
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:5195 -4-
WP No.7280/2018
Appearance:
Shri Rahul Sethi - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Kushal Goyal - Dy. A.G. for respondents/State.
WRIT PETITION No. 8906 of 2018
KAILASH CHAUDHARY
Versus
TRIBAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Rahul Sethi - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Kushal Goyal - Dy. A.G. for respondents/State.
WRIT PETITION No. 8995 of 2018
KAMLESH JOSHI
Versus
TRIBAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Rahul Sethi - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Kushal Goyal - Dy. A.G. for respondents/State.
WRIT PETITION No. 11529 of 2018
ROOP SINGH
Versus
TRIBAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: TRILOK SINGH
SAVNER
Signing time: 28-02-2025
18:43:55
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:5195 -5-
WP No.7280/2018
Shri Rahul Sethi - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Kushal Goyal - Dy. A.G. for respondents/State.
WRIT PETITION No. 11620 of 2018
RAJENDRA SONI
Versus
TRIBAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Rahul Sethi - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Kushal Goyal - Dy. A.G. for respondents/State.
WRIT PETITION No. 12933 of 2018
NIRMAL GIRI
Versus
TRIBAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Rahul Sethi - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Kushal Goyal - Dy. A.G. for respondents/State.
WRIT PETITION No. 13932 of 2018
TULSI BAI
Versus
TRIBAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Rahul Sethi - Advocate for the petitioner.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: TRILOK SINGH
SAVNER
Signing time: 28-02-2025
18:43:55
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:5195 -6-
WP No.7280/2018
Shri Kushal Goyal - Dy. A.G. for respondents/State.
WRIT PETITION No. 14822 of 2018
JANADI BAI
Versus
TRIBAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Rahul Sethi - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Kushal Goyal - Dy. A.G. for respondents/State.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reserved on : 6/2/2025
Pronounced on : 28/2/2025
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ORDER
1. This order shall govern disposal of Writ Petition Nos.7280/18,
5310/18, 6434/18, 6688/18, 7285/18, 7319/18, 7673/18, 8333/18, 8386/18,
8906/18, 8995/18, 11529/18, 11620/18, 12933/18, 13932/18 & 14822/18.
Regard being had to the similitude of the controversy involved in the
aforesaid petitions, they are heard analogously and disposed of by this
common order.
2. The petitioners, who have served the Tribal Welfare Department of
Madhya Pradesh in various roles, have approached this Court under Article
226 of the Constitution of India, seeking quashment of orders passed by the
respective authorities denying them the benefit of regular pay scale from the
date of completion of five years of continuous service.
3. The grievance of the petitioners is that despite long years of service,
they have not been granted the regular pay scale from the date of their
entitlement, and the respondents have instead extended benefits only from
the date of filing their respective writ petitions, which is contrary to the
benefits extended to similarly placed employees in compliance of the orders
passed by the Division Bench of this court in Revaram vs. State of MP
(WA No. 355/2010) and Kailash Talware vs. State of MP (WA No.
359/2010).
4. The petitioners had previously approached this Court by filing writ
petitions which were disposed off by a common order dated 01.10.2018. In
the order dated 01.10.2018 this Court held that the petitioners were not
entitled to regular pay scale benefits from the date of completion of five
years of service, but only from the date of filing the writ petitions. The Court
in its order reasoned that the petitioners continued as daily wage employees
and that since their services had not been regularized due to the non-
availability of vacant posts they were not entitled to get the benefit of
regular pay scale. The Court also relied on earlier decisions, including W.A.
No. 62/2015 (Poonam Chand More vs. State of M.P.) in which similar
claims for regularization were dismissed. The writ petitions were, therefore,
disposed of with an observation that the respondents would consider the
cases for regularization as and when permanent posts became available.
Dissatisfied with the outcome the petitioners preferred batch of Writ
Appeals (W.A. 133/2019 and other Connected Matters), which were
subsequently dismissed by the Division Bench vide order dated 02.08.2019.
5. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the Writ appeals, the petitioners
approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court through SLP (C) No. 30160/2024
and other connected matters which were disposed off vide order dated
04.12.2024. The Supreme Court in disposing off the SLP, set aside the
orders of both the Single Bench and the Division Bench of this Court and
remanded back WP No. 7280/2018 (Asha Rathore & Ors.) and similar writ
petitions for fresh consideration by this Court, directing that the cases be
decided based on their individual merits, particularly considering the
principles laid down in Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi reported
in (2006) 4 SCC 1.
Facts of the Case (for the sake of convenience, facts of W.P. No. 7280/2018
are taken) :-
6. The petitioner, Asha Rathore, was appointed as a Waterman on
29.01.1993 in the Tribal Welfare Department and continuously served in that
capacity without interruption. Upon the completion of five years of
uninterrupted service on 29.01.1998, the petitioner became eligible for the
benefit of a regular pay scale in accordance with the prevailing policies of
the State Government. Despite her eligibility, the petitioner was denied the
benefit of a regular pay scale, which prompted her to approach this Court by
filing WP No. 10615/2012 which was disposed off on 30.11.2013, with the
direction to the respondents to consider the petitioner's case in light of the
judgments rendered in Revaram vs. State of MP (WA No. 355/2010) and
Kailash Talware vs. State of MP (WA No. 359/2010), wherein similarly
situated employees had been granted the benefit of a regular pay scale from
the date of their entitlement, rather than from the date of filing their
respective writ petitions. In compliance with the said order, the respondents
considered the petitioner's claim but extended the benefit only from
06.11.2012, the date on which the petitioner had filed her earlier writ
petition, and not from 29.01.1998, the actual date on which she completed
five years of continuous service and became eligible. Dissatisfied with this
partial compliance, the petitioner submitted several representations
requesting that the arrears be calculated from the date of entitlement.
However, her claims were repeatedly denied. Consequently, the petitioner
filed WP No. 5528/2014, which was allowed on 06.02.2015, wherein this
Court once again directed the respondents to extend the benefit of the regular
pay scale from the date of entitlement, i.e., 29.01.1998. Despite the clear
directive of this court, the respondents failed to fully comply the order and
instead only subsequently issued an order dated 18.08.2017, restricting the
benefits to the date of filing the original writ petition. The petitioner,
aggrieved by the persistent refusal of the respondent to honor the directions
of court has approached this Court challenging the said order dated
18.08.2017, seeking its quashment and further directions to the respondents
to grant her the benefits from the date of entitlement.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the denial of arrears
from the date of entitlement is arbitrary, discriminatory, and contrary to
established legal principles. He submitted that the petitioners became
entitled to the benefit of a regular pay scale upon the completion of five
years of continuous service in accordance with the applicable policies. By
refusing to grant their arrears from the date of entitlement, the respondents
have acted in violation of the principles of equality enshrined under Article
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:5195 -10-
14 of the Constitution of India. The counsel for petitioners placed reliance on
the judgments rendered in Revaram vs. State of MP (WA No. 355/2010)
and Kailash Talware vs. State of MP (WA No. 359/2010), where similarly
situated employees were granted benefits from the date of entitlement. He
submitted that the respondents were directed by this Court to consider the
case of petitioners in light of these judgments and were obligated to extend
similar benefits to the petitioners. The learned counsel submitted that the
refusal of respondent to do so amounts to discrimination, particularly when
other similarly placed employees have been granted benefits from the date of
entitlement. Furthermore, it was contended that the reliance of respondents
on the date of filing the writ petition as the effective date for granting
benefits is wholly unsustainable in law. The right of petitioners to the benefit
accrued upon the completion of five years of continuous service, and the
subsequent denial of arrears from that date has caused financial prejudice to
the petitioners. Counsel also pointed out that the failure of respondents to
comply with the previous orders of this court has compelled the petitioners
to initiate multiple rounds of litigation, thereby causing undue hardship. The
counsel for petitioners thus prayed for quashment of the impugned orders
and for direction to the respondents to grant the regular pay scale benefits
from their date of entitlement along with arrears and interest.
8. Per contra, learned counsel Deputy A.G. appearing on behalf of the
respondents contended that, the petitioners were initially appointed as daily
wage workers. They are not eligible for the benefits claimed under the
circular dated 17.03.1978, which was applied exclusively to contingency-
paid employees. He submitted that the petitioners being daily wage
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:5195 -11-
employees could not claim parity with those employees who had been
appointed against sanctioned posts or whose appointments had been
regularized in accordance with established procedures. The respondents
further contended that the circular dated 17.03.1978, under which the
petitioners seek benefits, has been superseded by a subsequent circular dated
28.02.2014, which nullified the previous entitlements. He submitted that the
claim of petitioners even if valid under the earlier circular, had been
rendered infructuous in view of the later policy. It was also submitted that
the respondents had, in fact, complied with the directions of this Court by
extending the benefits to the petitioners from the date of filing of their writ
petitions. Respondents submit that the petitioners were not entitled to claim
arrears from a retrospective date, as no corresponding sanctioned post
existed for their regularization. The respondents expressed concerns
regarding the financial implications of granting arrears from the date of
entitlement, stating that such a direction would impose an undue burden on
the State exchequer. The respondents prayed that the impugned orders were
passed in accordance with the applicable rules and policies and the
petitioners are not entitled to any further relief and these Writ Petitions be
dismissed.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length.
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 Pradesh.
10. By the aforesaid circular the doubts were clarified in respect of
implementation of the Madhya Pradesh Work Charge Contingency Pay
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:5195 -12-
Fixation Rules, 1977 working in various government departments. 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
service 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 service. 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 petitioners were appointed after 1.1.1974,
therefore, they are not entitled for the benefit of circular dated 17.3.1978.
The Clause 6 is reproduced 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 osruekuksa 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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:5195 -13-
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 aforesaid contention is liable to be rejected on the ground
that before issuance of circular dated 28.1.2014, the right had already been
accrued 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 cannot 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 petitioner was appointed on
29.1.1993.
12. As discussed above, the cut-off date 1.1.1974 was made applicable to
those employees who were appointed prior to 1.1.1974 and they were given
benefit of revision pay scale who had completed 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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:5195 -14-
the ground that they were wrongly given the benefit 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 respondents 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 filing 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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:5195 -15-
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; loksZPp 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
okLrfod 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 order:-
"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
respondent will examine the petitioner's case in the light of the
aforesaid directions within a period of three months from the date
of receipt 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 benefit of regular pay
scale from the date of initial appointment, the respondents 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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:5195 -16-
completion of 5 years service from the date of initial appointment in view of
the circular dated 17.3.1978. All the consequential 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
thereafter up to the Supreme Court.
17. Signed order be kept in the file of WP No.7280/2018 and a copy
thereof be placed in the file of connected WP Nos.5310/18, 6434/18,
6688/18, 7285/18, 7319/18, 7673/18, 8333/18, 8386/18, 8906/18, 8995/18,
11529/18, 11620/18, 12933/18, 13932/18 & 14822/18.
(VIVEK RUSIA)
JUDGE
trilok
