Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ram Lakhan Dubey vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 24 July, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:33871
1 WP-5640-2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN
ON THE 24th OF JULY, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 5640 of 2023
RAMJI SHARMA AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WITH
WRIT PETITION No. 23970 of 2023
RAM LAKHAN DUBEY AND OTHERS
Versus
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Ajeet Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Ms. Virridhi Pathak, learned Panel Lawyer for respondent/State.
ORDER
By way of present petition, the petitioners have called into question the
order Annex.P/1, whereby their case for grant of pre-revised pay scale of
515-800 and other consequential revised pay scales from time to time has
been turned down by the State Government on the ground that in WP
No.16054/2003 (A.L. Thakur Vs. State of M.P. and others) pertaining to
Narmada Valley Development Authority and therefore, the said case would
not apply to Public Works Department and hence, the case of the petitioners
is distinguishable.
2. The petitioners are admittedly working on the post of timekeepers in
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:33871
2 WP-5640-2023
Public Works Development and seek parity with the case of A.L. Thakur
(supra). Their cases have been rejected on the ground that the case of A.L.
Thakur (supra) was case of timekeepers working in the Narmada Valley
Authority.
3. The petitioners have relied on the judgment in the case of A.L.
Thakur (supra) to contend that since the timekeepers in all the Engineering
Departments of the State are getting equal pay scale and therefore, the order
passed in A.L. Thakur (supra) would apply to the case of present petitioners
also.
4. The State has filed reply and it is contended that the case of A.L.
Thakur (supra) was based on case of Laxmi Narayan Upadhyaya and the said
order has been set aside by the Supreme Court, therefore, where ever
compliance has been made in case of A.L. Thakur (supra) that would not
bring any right to claim negative parity by the other timekeepers.
5.Upon hearing the rival parties, it is seen that the State has taken a
plea in para 9 of the reply that the case of A.L. Thakur (supra) was based on
the case of Laxmi Narayan Upadhyaya which has been set aside by the
Supreme Court on 02/02/2006. However, neither any case number has been
cited in the reply nor has been order has been filed in the reply. A vague
pleading has been made without being supported by any case number or
copy of order. This Court in the case of A.L. Thakur (supra) in paragraph 5
of the said order placed on record as Annex.P/5 has already recorded that the
State has decided not to file appeal against the order in case of Laxmi
Narayan Upadhyaya and to comply the said order and therefore, the said
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:33871
3 WP-5640-2023
order has to be followed for other employees also.
6. This Court has gone through the order passed in the case of Laxmi
Narayan Upadhyaya Vs. State of M.P. (TA No.993/1988) decided on
06/11/1988 by M.P. Administrative Tribunal, Bench Gwalior and reported in
1999(1) MPLSR 267. In the said case, the Tribunal has relied on some earlier
judgment of the High Court so also of the Civil Court deciding some service
disputes and has decided that the Amins working under Water Resources
Department are entitled to pay scale of 515-800. It was the case of Amins
working in Water Resources Department.
7. In the case A.L. Thakur (supra), the case of Laxmi Narayan
Upadhyaya (supra) was considered and it was found that a timekeepers are
entitled for the same pay scale, which was decided by Tribunal in TA
No.993/1988 decided on 06/11/1988 by Gwalior Bench. The order of
Tribunal Laxmi Narayan Upadhyaya (supra) has not been challenged by the
State and what has been recorded by a Coordinate Bench in the case of A.L.
Thakur (supra).
8. Now the only defence which remains to be considered is that in the
service Rules applicable to PWD, the post of timekeeper has been given a
specific pay scale of 445-635 as per the schedule placed on record at page 16
of the reply.
9. In the case of A.L. Thakur (supra) also, the same dispute was
decided in respect of Irrigation Department that whether the timekeepers are
entitled to pay scales of 515-800 or not. In the said case also, the record of
which has been perused by this Court, the State Government had filed a
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:33871
4 WP-5640-2023
reply that the approved pay scale is 445-635 and cannot be given the benefit
of 515-800. Therefore, the dispute in the case of A.L. Thakur (supra) and in
the present case is same that whether whether the timekeepers are entitled to
pay scales of 445-635 or 515-800. The dispute being similar and all the staff
in Engineering Departments doing the same and same nature of work with
same designation, there is no reason why the judgment of A.L. Thakur
(supra) which is for Irrigation Department should not be applied in the case
of PWD.
10. Consequently, the petition is allowed. The petitioners are held
entitled to pay scale of 515-800 and all other consequential revised pay
scales from time to time at par with the case of A.L. Thakur (supra).
11. Let the necessary calculation be done by the State authorities
within two months from the date of production of copy of this order.
(VIVEK JAIN)
JUDGE
RS
