Madhya Pradesh High Court
Chandra Shekhar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 24 July, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:15485
1 WP-21149-2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ASHISH SHROTI
ON THE 24th OF JULY, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 21149 of 2021
CHANDRA SHEKHAR
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Vineet Verma - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Brij Mohan Patel- GA for the respondents/State.
ORDER
The petitioner has filed this petition praying for a direction to the
respondents to give him the benefit of Kramonati/time scale of pay.
2. The facts necessary for decision of this case are that vide order
dated 31/1/1991, the petitioner was regularized on the post of Waterman
under the Work Charged & Contingency Paid Establishment in the pay-scale
of Rs. 750-12-870-15-945 w.e.f. 7/5/1990. It is the grievance of the
petitioner that even though he was regularized in the Work Charged &
Contingency Paid Establishment in the year 1991, he has not been given the
benefit of promotion/Kramonati/time scale of pay. When no action was taken
on his claim, the petitioner filed the present writ petition.
3. In the return, the respondents have taken a defence that the
petitioner was working as contingency paid employee and there is no
channel of promotion to such employees. They have further submitted that in
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:15485
2 WP-21149-2021
absence of statutory provision available in favour of the petitioner, the relief
as claimed by the petitioner cannot be granted to him.
4. Leaned counsel for the petitioner during the course of arguments
placed reliance upon the decision of Coordinate Bench of this Court in the
case of Teju Lal Yadav Vs. State of M.P. and Others, 2009 ILR MP 1326 ,
wherein, it has been held in paragraph no. 11 and 12 that an employee
working in Work Charged and Contingency Paid Establishment is entitled to
the benefit of Kramonati as is given to the regular employees of the State
Government. Para 11 of the said decision is relevant and is reproduced
hereunder:-
"11. The principles laid down in the case of Shri K.L. Asre (supra)
has been made applicable to time keepers, working in the work
charged and contingency paid establishment. If time keepers and
drivers in the work charged establishment are entitled to
promotion under the time bound scheme, there is no reason as to
why the said benefit be not extended to other employees
constituting the same class in the work charged and contingency
paid establishment. The policy is made applicable to drivers of this
establishment and the reason for not making the said policy
applicable to other categories of the work charged and
contingency paid establishment is not indicated in the return. No
reason is given as to why a different policy is being adopted in the
case of other employees in the work charged and contingency paid
establishment and the benefit granted to drivers in the said
establishment is not extended to other employees like the
petitioner. Respondents being a "State" has to give similar benefit
to employees similarly situated and forming a common class. They
may be justified in granting some additional benefit to some of the
employees in comparison to others, but the justification and
reasons for such a classification has to meet the test of Article 14
of the Constitution and the decision has to be reasonable, fair and
justified by cogent reasons and relevant considerations. Except for
contending that the Policy is not applicable to employees working
in the work charged and contingency paid establishment, no
justification is forthcoming from the respondents with regard to
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:15485
3 WP-21149-2021
further classification amongst the employees working in the work
charged and contingency paid establishment with regard to
implementation of the Policy - Annexure P/3 and P/4. When the
employees working in the work charged and contingency paid
establishment constitute a common class, all benefits which are
extended to one set of employees namely drivers as per the policy
and the time keepers in the light of the judgment in the case
of K.L. Asre (supra), has to be granted by the respondents to the
present petitioners also. In the absence of proper justification for
adopting a different policy and cogent reason given justifying the
reasonableness in the classification and differentiation done
fulfilling the requirement of Article 14 of the Constitution,
discrimination cannot be permitted. Parity in employment is
required to be maintained and, therefore, keeping in view the
circumstances and the action of the respondents in adopting a pick
and choose method violative of Article 14 of the Constitution in
the case of employees who form a homogenous class, the action
discriminatory in nature cannot be upheld by this Court."
5. In view of the aforesaid legal position, the respondents are required
to reconsider the petitioner's claim for grant of Kramonati at least.
6. This petition is accordingly disposed of directing respondents no.
4/5 to consider the petitioner's claim keeping in view the decision of this
Court in the case of Teju Lal Yadav (supra) and take a final decision in the
matter within a period of 90 days from the date of communication of
certified copy of this order.
7. With the aforesaid observations, petition stands disposed of.
(ASHISH SHROTI)
JUDGE
JPS/-
