Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sureshsingh Tomar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 15 May, 2025
Author: Subodh Abhyankar
Bench: Subodh Abhyankar
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:12807
1 WP-8741-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUBODH ABHYANKAR
ON THE 15th OF MAY, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 8741 of 2025
SURESHSINGH TOMAR
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Anand Agrawal - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Raghav Shrivastava-GA appearing on behalf of Advocate General.
ORDER
1. The petitioner before this Court, who is the employee of worked charged
contingency paid establishment have filed this present petition claiming
kramonnati/time bound promotion pay-scale on completion of 12 years of service. The
petitioner retired on 31.10.2023.
2. The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as store clerk in the year 1993 and
was engaged under the work charged and contingency paid establishment and in terms
of various judgments of this Court they are entitled for Kramonnati and time bound
pay-scale.
3. The stand of the respondents is that since the petitioner is working under the work-
charged contingency paid establishment, the scheme of Kramonnati as contained in the
circular dated 17.03.1999 and 19.04.1999 Kramonnati and time bound pay-scale. is not
applicable to the petitioners and, therefore, the case for grant of Krammonati pay-scale
deserves to be rejected.
4. It has been stated by the learned counsel for the petitioners that this case is covered
by the judgment delivered in the case of Teju Lal Yadav Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
and ors., reported in ILR (2009) MP 1326 decided on 23.01.2009.
5. Undisputedly, the petitioners are appointed in the year 1988 and they have
certainly completed the number of years as required for Krammonati and grant of time
bound promotion. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of
record, it is found that the issue involved in the matter is squarely covered by the
judgment of this Court in the matter of Teju Lal Yadav Vs. State of MP & others
reported in ILR (2009) MP 1326 wherein this Court in the light of the same circulars
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:12807
2 WP-8741-2025
has considered the issue of grant of krammonati pay scale to the work charged and
contingency paid employee and on placing reliance upon the earlier judgment in the
matter of K.L. Asre Vs. State passed on 7/11/2005 in Writ Petition (s) 1070/2003 has
held as under:-
"6. Apart from the above, it is seen that the petitioner is working in the
Polytechnic College and is said to be a contingency paid employee. Under
the M.P. Education Department (Technical Branch) Contingency Paid
Employees Recruitment and Conditions of Service Rules, 1978, a
contingency paid employee is defined under Rule 2(b) to mean a person
employed for full time in an office or establishment and who is paid on
monthly basis and whose pay is charged to "Office Contingencies" but it
excludes such of the employees who are employed for certain periods only in
the year. In the aforesaid Rules of 1978, the categorization of employees is
done under Rule-6 and the employees are classified into two categories i.e.
permanent and temporary. Under sub-rule 2 of Rule-6, it is provided that on
completion of 15 years of continuous service the contingency paid
employees shall be eligible for attaining the status of permanent work
charged or contingency paid employee. The similar provisions are made in
the M.P. (Work Charged and Contingency Paid Employees) Pension Rules,
1979 wherein the permanent employee is defined under Rule 2(c) to mean a
contingency paid employee or a work charged employee who has completed
15 years of service or more on or after 1st January 1974.
7. The complete reading of these Rules indicates that a contingency paid
employee attaining the permanent status and a work charged employee
attaining the permanent status are treated to be similar in all respects for the
purpose of granting them pension and revision of pay scales under the MP
Work Charged and Contingency Paid Employees Revision of Pay Rules,
1990 and under the M.P. (Work Charged and Contingency Paid Employees)
Pension Rules, 1979.
8. Considering the fact that under the statutory rules also the contingency
paid and the work charged employees are considered to be forming a
common class. There is no reason why the benefit of time bound promotion
which is extended to the work charged employees and why the judgment
rendered in case of K.L. Asre (supra) be not made applicable in the case of
the present employee also who has attained the status of a permanent work
charged or contingency paid employees and entitled to various benefits in the
matter of revision of pay and pension in identical manner.
9. A perusal of the Policy as contained in Annexure P/3 further indicates that
even though the policy speaks about granting krammonati under the scheme
to employees in the regular establishment, but by Clause (13) and (14) of the
Scheme, the Government has extended the benefit of Krammonati to vehicle
drivers working in the work charged and contingency paid establishment. A
perusal of Clauses (13) and (14) clearly indicates that the benefit of
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:12807
3 WP-8741-2025
krammonati after completing 12 years and 24 years of service is made
applicable to employees in the work charged and contingency paid
establishment.
10. As far as work charged and contingency paid employees are concerned,
their service conditions are governed by the same rules namely the Work
Charged and Contingency Paid Employees Recruitment Rules, applicable to
various departments and the work Charged and Contingency Paid Employees
Pension Rules 1979 and the Work Charged and Contingency Paid
Employees Revision of Pay Rules, 1990. For the purpose of recruitment,
appointment, pay revision and grant of pensionary benefits, the work charged
and contingency paid employees constitute a common class and their terms
and conditions of employment are governed by identical set of rules. It is,
therefore, clear that for the purpose of recruitment, appointment, grant of
pension and revision of pay scales, work charged and contingency paid
employees are treated similarly and a separate set of rules, different from the
one applicable in the regular establishment, govern their terms and
conditions of employment. The work charged and contingency paid
employees constitute a common class and therefore, this class of employees
are entitled to similar treatment in all respects deviation being permissible on
justifiable grounds and reasons. In the present case, the benefit of time bound
promotion under the scheme- Annexure P/3 and P/4 is extended to vehicle
drivers working in the work charged and contingency paid establishment, as
per the policy itself.
11. The principles laid down in the case of Shri K.L. Asre (supra) has been
made applicable to time keepers, working work charged and contingency
paid establishment. If time keepers and drivers in the work charged and
contingency paid 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
his 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 further classification
amongst the employees working in the work charged and contingency paid
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:12807
4 WP-8741-2025
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 homogeneous class the
action discriminatory in nature cannot be upheld by this Court.
12. Keeping in view the aforesaid, the respondents are directed to extend the
benefit of promotion in accordance with the aforesaid scheme to the
petitioner and after evaluating his case in accordance with the requirements
of the said scheme, grant
benefit to the petitioner. In case the petitioner is found entitled then
necessary orders in this regard be passed within a period of three months.
13. The petition is accordingly allowed and disposed off."
6. The another important aspect of the matter is that the State Government has issued
circular on 21.09.2016 granting the benefit to the work charged contingency paid
establishment w.e.f. 01.01.2016. The executive instructions issued by the State
Government cannot supersede the judgment delivered by this Court, which has attained
finality and, therefore, the executive instructions issued by the State Government to the
extent the cut-of-date has been fixed is hereby quashed. The petitioners shall be entitled
for all consequential benefits, which have been extended to Tejulal Yadav (supra) on
account of the order passed by this Court.
7. The petitioner shall be entitled for Kramonnati with effect from 2005. The
petitioner shall also be entitled for monetary benefits and arrears for the above period.
The exercise of passing the order granting the above benefits be concluded and the
respondents are also further directed to issue revised pension and gratuity order of
petitioner on the basis of above benefits of pay scale with arrears as stated within a
period of six months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
8. Accordingly the petition stands disposed of.
(SUBODH ABHYANKAR)
JUDGE
das
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:12807
5 WP-8741-2025
