Madhya Pradesh High Court
Shri Ramswaroop Kaurav vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 3 January, 2023
Author: Milind Ramesh Phadke
Bench: Milind Ramesh Phadke
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
ON THE 3rd OF JANUARY 2022
WRIT PETITION No.6419 of 2018
Between:-
SHRI RAMSWAROOP KAURAV S/O LATE
SHRI RAMGOPAL KAURAV, AGED ABOUT
68 YEARS, OCCUAPTION: RETIRED, GOVT.
SERVANT, RETIRED AS CROP SERVICE
SUPERVISOR (C.S.S.) R/O VILLAGE
ALAMPUR, WARD NO.11, TEHSIL LAHAR,
DISTRICT BHIND (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI R.P. SINGH - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
THROUGH THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, VALLABH
BHAWAN, BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. COMMISSIONER, LAND RECORD,
MOTI MAHAL PARISAR, GWALIOR
(MADHYA PRADESH)
2
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI SUSHANT TIWARI - GOVT. ADVOCATE )
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This petition coming on for admission this day, Hon'ble
Shri Justice Milind Ramesh Phadke passed the following:
ORDER
1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is preferred against the illegal and arbitrary rejection of claim of the Petitioner for grant of time pay scale after completion of 10 years of service, whereas the benefit of the same had been accorded to persons junior to him.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the Petitioner entered into the service of the Respondents in the year 1971 and thereafter he was promoted in the year 1976 and subsequently was promoted as Statistical Assistant in the year 1977. The said post was re-designated as Assistant Statistical Officer/ASO and thereafter on the same pay-scale was promoted as CSS in the year 1984. From above said promotions it reflects that during the entire tenure of service the Petitioner was given promotion four times, but in fact he was promoted twice with respect to pay scale benefit.
3. During his service tenure the Petitioner on number of occasions made requests to the Respondents to provide time bound pay scale, but no heed was given to the said requests. In 3 the mean while the Petitioner got superannuated and completed 30 years of service, but the benefit of time pay scale was not extended to him. Left with no option the Petitioner moved a representation contending that the pay of ASO and CCS are literally the same having a pay scale of Rs.9300-34800-3600, but nothing was considered and the benefit of time pay scale was not extended to him. Since no action was taken by the authorities a Writ Petition No. 3570/2017 was preferred by the Petitioner, which was disposed off on 21/06/2017 with a direction to consider the case of the Petitioner, but when no consideration was done by the Respondents, a Contempt Petition No.63/2018 was filed, but during pendency of that petition, the claim of the Petitioner was rejected. Hence the present Petition.
4. Counsel for the Petitioner vehemently argued that the Respondents were duty bound to grant the benefit of time pay scale after completion of 30 years of service, whereas vide impugned order the Respondents had tried to demonstrate that the Petitioner who had been promoted with regular intervals had not completed 10 years on one post and therefore, he is not entitled for the benefit of the circular of 2008 and could not get the benefit of time pay scale, which is not the correct position, as the Petitioner was promoted on the post of Statistical Assistant in the year 1977, which was re-designated as Assistant 4 Statistical Officer, but the pay scale remained the same. Again the Petitioner was promoted to the post of Paryavekshak Fasal Prayog, but the pay scale remained the same, which initially was Rs.280/- when revised was within the band of Rs.5500- 9000, which again was revised to Rs.9300-34800-3600, thus, till his retirement the pay scale remained the same except for the designation which changed. On the strength of the above arguments it was contended that the Respondents without going into the above aspect had rejected the representation vide impugned order which deserves to be set aside.
5. Per contra the Government Advocate submitted that there is no infirmity in the order dated 08/02/2018 which is under challenge and it was only after due consideration keeping in view the order dated 21/06/2017 passed by this Court in W.P. No. 3570/2017, the representation been rejected. It was further argued that as per the circulars of the State Government for extending the benefit of time pay scale after promotion to the next post, a minimum of 10 years of service is mandatory, but from the service record of the Petitioner it would be evident that the Petitioner did not fulfil the criterion and therefore, the claim made by the Petitioner for time pay scale on the post of Assistant Statistical Officer could not be considered and by way of a reasoned order since the representation had been rejected, no further interference is required, thus, prayed for dismissal of 5 the Petition.
6. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties at length and perused the record.
7. Placement of the Petitioner on different posts are not in dispute. From the reply as well as the contentions raised by the Counsel for the Respondent State it does not reflect that the Petitioner had not completed a period of 10 years of service in a particular scale. In rejoinder the Petitioner had stated that appointment of the Petitioner on the post of Statistical Assistant was on a pay scale of Rs.280/-, which was revised at Rs.5500- 9000 and later on Rs.9300-34800+3600 (grade pay) and later the post of Statistical Assistant was re-designated as Assistant Statistical Officer in the year 1983, which carried the same pay scale and even the pay scale to his post of promotion i.e. Supervisor (Fasal Prayog) was the same, thus, there was no financial upgradation and the Petitioner continued on the same pay scale till his retirement. This fact had not been controverted by the Respondent State. The only explanation given is that since the Petitioner had completed a requisite tenure of 10 years on the post of Assistant Statistical Officer before his promotion as Supervisor (Fasal Prayog), he is not entitled for the benefit of time pay scale.
8. This argument of the State is not acceptable. Admittedly, the Petitioner since his posting as Statistical Officer in the year 6 1977 (re-designated as Assistant Statistical Officer in the year 1983), was on the same pay scale through out his tenue till his retirement without any upgradation, thus, in the light of circular dated 24/01/2008, the Petitioner would be entitled for grant of time pay scale.
9. The Petition is hereby allowed. The order dated 08/02/2018 is hereby set aside. Respondents are directed to consider and grant benefit of time pay scales to the Petitioner, which had fell due w.e.f. 01/04/2006 in terms of circular dated 24/01/2008, looking to the tenure of his service from 1977 till his retirement on 31/12/2008. Let this exercise be done within a period of 2 months from the date of receiving of certified copy of this order.
(Milind Ramesh Phadke) Judge Pawar* ASHISH PAWAR 2023.01.07 12:25:12 +05'30'