Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rajo Bai (Died) W/O Shri Mohanlal Alies ... vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 21 January, 2025
Author: Anil Verma
Bench: Anil Verma
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:1133
1 WP-28218-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL VERMA
ON THE 21st OF JANUARY, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 28218 of 2024
RAJO BAI (DIED) W/O SHRI MOHANLAL ALIES MOHAN SINGH
JATAV (S N 04) SERVICE EE PWD DEPARTMEN SUB DIVI
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Krishna Kant Shrivastava - advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Dilip Awasthi - GA for the respondents/State.
ORDER
The petitioner has preferred this petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India seeking the following reliefs:-
"(i) That, a direction may kindly be given to the respondents to
give the benefit of regular/minimum pay scale of the post on
which the petitioner is working and classified as permanent
employees as w.e.f. 24/04/2013 and pay the difference of arrears
on fixation of pay from the date of classification along with
interest at the rate of 18% p.a. as per the law laid down by Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Ramnaresh Rawat (supra);
(ii) That, the respondents may kindly be directed to regularize
the services of the petitioner and make the member of GPF;
(iii) Cost of the petition may kindly be awarded; and
(iv) Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the
facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be granted to the
petitioner".
2. Brief facts of the case are that late Rajo Bai, mother of the petitioner
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:1133
2 WP-28218-2024
was initially appointed in the respondent deportment on 08.05.1971 as a
labour and she had been classified under the Standard Standing Orders
framed under Section 21 of Madhya Pradesh Industrial Employment
(Standing Orders) Act, 1961 with effect from 19.11.2015 (Annexure P/1).
Her classification has been intact till now. Therefore, as per the law laid
down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ram Naresh Rawat Vs.
Ashwini Ray and others reported in (2017) 3 SCC 436 , she is entitled to get
all the benefits as given in the case of Ram Naresh Rawat (supra) , but the
respondents are trying to nullify the whole judicial pronouncement. The
actions of the respondents are against the public policy. Being aggrieved by
the same, the petitioner has preferred this petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner also placed reliance upon the
judgment passed in the cases of Raju Vs. State of M.P. and others (W.P.
No.26088/2019, order dated 09.12.2019) and Bhagwan Singh and others Vs.
State of M.P. and others (W.P. No.25316/2023, order dated 05.10.2023).
4. Per contra, counsel for the respondent opposes the prayer and prays
for its rejection by submitting that the deceased Rajo Bai was not entitled to
get the benefit of the said judgment and policy.
5. Both the parties heard at length and perused the record.
6. 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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:1133
3 WP-28218-2024
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".
7. In view of above, the instant petition is disposed of with a direction
to the petitioner to prefer a fresh representation in accordance with law
elaborating all factual details and legal position and in case, it is found that
the classification of the deceased mother Rajo Bai is intact, then a case of the
petitioner be considered by the respondents in accordance with law in a
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:1133
4 WP-28218-2024
timebound manner and the petitioner shall be paid a minimum of the pay
scale admissible to the post, on which his mother has been classified as a
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.
8. With the aforesaid directions, the instant petition stands disposed of.
9. E-copy/Certified copy as per rules/directions.
(ANIL VERMA)
JUDGE
Rks
