Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ramesh Pal vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 6 January, 2025
Author: Anil Verma
Bench: Anil Verma
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:140
1 WP-41285-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL VERMA
ON THE 6 th OF JANUARY, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 41285 of 2024
RAMESH PAL
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Devesh Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri K. K. Prajapati, Government Advocate for State.
ORDER
With the consent of both the parties matter is heard finally.
2. The present petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India seeking following reliefs:-
"7.1 That, a direction may kindly be given to the respondents to
give the service benefit and minimum pay scale of the post of the
permanent classified Labour from the date of his classification as
permanent employee to the petitioner. And pay the arrears of
salary on fixation of pay along with all consequence benefits with
interest from the date of his Classification.
7.2 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 Labour from
the date of his Classification.
7.3 That, any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit
and proper may also be given to the petitioner along with costs."
3. Brief facts of the case are that petitioner was appointed as a daily wage
employee on the post of Labour in respondent department on 1.8.1985. He has been
declared as a classified permanent employee vide order dated 02.12.2010(Annexure P-
1) passed by respondent No. 4 after working 240 days satisfactorily. His name is
mentioned at serial No.41 in the order but petitioner was not given minimum pay scale
from the date of his classification in the light of the judgment of Ramnaresh Rawat Vs.
Ashwini Ray and others reported in (2017) 3 SCC 436 and he was reverted from
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:140
2 WP-41285-2024
permanent classification to Sthaikarmi, which is violation to the Standard Standing
Orders and Rules passed by the State Government. Classification of petitioner is intact
till now. Being aggrieved by the same, petitioner has preferred this petition.
4. It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that identical petitions have
already been disposed of by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court by order dated
05.09.2018 passed in W.P. No.20650/2018. Relevant portion whereof reads as under:
"The law in regard to the benefits flowing from an order of
classification is now settled in view of the decision of Apex Court
in the case of Ram Naresh Rawat Vs. Ashwini Ray reported in
2017 (Vol 3) SCC 436, relevant extract of which is reproduced
below for convenience and ready reference:
4........The precise submission is that once they are conferred the
status of permanent employee by the court and it is also
categorically held that they are entitled to regular pay attached to
the said post, not only the pay should be fixed in the regular pay-
scale, the petitioners would also be entitled to the increments and
other emoluments attached to the said post.
18. Insofar as petitioners before us are concerned they have been
classified as 'permanent'. For this reason, we advert to the core
issue, which would determine the fate of these cases, viz., whether
these employees can be treated as 'regular' employees in view of
the aforesaid classification? In other words, with their
classification as 'permanent', do they stand regularized in service?
26. From the aforesaid, it follows that though a 'permanent
employee' has right to receive pay in the graded pay-scale, at the
same time, he would be getting only minimum of the said pay-
scale with no increments. It is only the regularization in service
which would entail grant of increments etc. in the pay scale.
27. In view of the aforesaid, we do not find any substance in the
contentions raised by the petitioners in these contempt petitions.
We are conscious of the fact that in some cases, on earlier
occasions, the State Government while fixing the pay scale,
granted increments as well. However, if some persons are given
the benefit wrongly, that cannot form the basis of claiming the
same relief. It is trite that right to equality under Article 14 is not
in negative terms (See Indian Council of Agricultural Research &
Anr. v. T.K. Suryanarayan & Ors.9 ).
28. These contempt petitions are, accordingly, dismissed".
5. In view of above, the instant petition is disposed of with a direction to
petitioner to prefer a fresh representation in accordance with law elaborating all factual
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:140
3 WP-41285-2024
details and legal position and in case, it is found that the classification is intact, then
case of petitioner be considered by the respondents in accordance with law in a
timebound manner and the petitioner shall be paid minimum of the pay scale admissible
to the post, on which he has been classified as permanent employee, without any
increment. If any arrears are worked out, the same shall be paid as expeditiously as
possible, preferably within a period of three months.
6. With the aforesaid directions, the instant petition stands disposed of.
7. E-copy/Certified copy as per rules/directions.
(ANIL VERMA)
JUDGE
