Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sudeep Kumar Jain vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 15 April, 2015
1 WP No. 6762/2012
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH,
BENCH AT GWALIOR.
SB : Hon'ble Shri Justice Sujoy Paul
Writ Petition No. 6762/2012
Brajesh Chandra Parashar
Vs.
State of MP & others
AND
Writ Petition No. 86/2013
Ajay Kumar Saxena
Vs.
State of MP & others
AND
Writ Petition No. 6126/2013
Munna Lal Ralthore
Vs.
State of MP & others
AND
Writ Petition No. 6127/2013
Raja Ram Kushwaha
Vs.
State of MP & others
AND
Writ Petition No. 6128/2013
Lakhan Singh Bais
Vs.
State of MP & others
AND
Writ Petition No. 6129/2013
Devendra Singh Parmar
Vs.
State of MP & others
2 WP No. 6762/2012
AND
Writ Petition No. 7578/2013
Bhuvnesh Singh Chouhan
Vs.
State of MP & others
AND
Writ Petition No. 68/2014
Diwan Sen
Vs.
State of MP & others
AND
Writ Petition No. 69/2014
Mohd. Idris Khan
Vs.
State of MP & others
AND
Writ Petition No. 71/2014
Shamshad Ali
Vs.
State of MP & others
AND
Writ Petition No. 73/2014
Man Singh
Vs.
State of MP & others
AND
Writ Petition No. 75/2014
Ashok Kumar
Vs.
State of MP & others
AND
3 WP No. 6762/2012
Writ Petition No. 78/2014
Nandu
Vs.
State of MP & others
AND
Writ Petition No. 165/2014
Har Govind
Vs.
State of MP & others
AND
Writ Petition No. 170/2014
Jagannath Batham
Vs.
State of MP & others
AND
Writ Petition No. 171/2014
Nathua
Vs.
State of MP & others
AND
Writ Petition No. 399/2014
Bhagwan Singh
Vs.
State of MP & others
AND
Writ Petition No. 1187/2014
Chandra Pal Singh Sengar
Vs.
State of MP & others
AND
Writ Petition No. 1372/2014
4 WP No. 6762/2012
Munshi Lal Sharma
Vs.
State of MP & others
AND
Writ Petition No. 1383/2014
Ram Sewak Dhuria
Vs.
State of MP & others
AND
Writ Petition No. 6057/2014
Mohar Singh Gurjar
Vs.
State of MP & others
AND
Writ Petition No. 6058/2014
Khalil Khan
Vs.
State of MP & others
AND
Writ Petition No. 7238/2014
Sudip Kumar Jain
Vs.
State of MP & others
AND
Writ Petition No. 674/2015
Suresh Singh Rajput
Vs.
State of MP & others
AND
Writ Petition No. 838/2015
Jaswant Singh
5 WP No. 6762/2012
Vs.
State of MP & others
AND
Writ Petition No. 839/2015
Navrang Singh Rathore
Vs.
State of MP & others
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri B.P.Singh, Advocate for the petitioners.
Shri Pravin Newaskar, Dy. Govt. Advocate for the respondent/
State.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ORDER
( /04/2015) This order shall govern the disposal of all the aforesaid writ petitions. Since these matters are identical in nature, same were heard on the joint request of the parties and decided by this common order.
2. The facts are taken from Writ Petition No.6762/2012 (Brajesh Chandra Parashar vs. State of MP & ors.).
The petitioner was initially appointed as a daily wager on 1.8.1982. He was working as copyist/clerk. The respondent passed the order dated 25.1.2006 and classified the petitioner as permanent employee. In all these writ petitions, the petitioners contended that they have been classified on the respective posts which they are holding as permanent employee. Hence, they are entitled for the pay scale and other benefits attached to the said post.
3. The respondents have filed the return and have contended that the petitioners' initial appointment as daily wager was not in accordance with law and, therefore, they are not entitled for any benefit. It is further contended that SLPs are pending before the Apex Court in which the order of this Court granting pay scale on classification is under challenge.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6 WP No. 6762/20125. The concept of classification is based on the provisions of M.P.Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Rules, 1963 (for brevity, the 'Standing Orders'). The said provision is statutory in nature. This Court way back in 1989 JLJ 36 (State of MP vs. Ramprakash) opined that on classification as permanent employee, the employee is entitled for regular pay scale. The Division Bench in Writ Appeal No. 110/2011 (decided on 1.11.2011) opined as under:-
"whether an employee comes by way of normal recruitment process or through the process of classification, the fact remains that both i.e. the normally recruited employee and a classified employee work on the same post and perform the same duties. It cannot be held that the classification has any less effect or force as compared to the normal process of appointment, because the classification is also based upon the law in the form of Standing Orders and as such both employees who have been brought into service through either of the two processes permitted by law, as permanent employees against a particular post, should be entitled to the same benefits. Taking a contrary view would mean that the employees inducted through classification process would be saddled with an undesirable disability throughout their service, as compared to other employees which may tantamount to violation of the principle of "equal pay for equal work".
Our view finds support from another Division Bench decision of this Court report in the case of State of M.P. Vs. Ram Prakash (1989 JLJ 36).
For the aforementioned reasons, we do not find any good ground to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge.
Accordingly, the writ appeals are dismissed."
The said order of Division Bench was assailed before the Apex Court in SLP (Civil) No.(s) 20025/2011. The Apex Court opined as under:-
"In Rest of the Matters Delay condoned.
Dismissed.
We direct the State Government to implement the order(s) passed by the High Court within eight months' time from today.
If for any reason, the petitioner-State does not implement the order(s) passed by the High Court, the 7 WP No. 6762/2012 respondents are at liberty to approach this Court by way of filing contempt petition(s)."
Thus, during the pendency of these matters, Supreme Court has dismissed the SLP of State Government.
6. Apart from this, similar orders passed by this Court are affirmed by the Division Bench of this Court and by Supreme Court. In WP No. 6515/2011 (s) (Suresh Sharma vs. State of MP & others), this court followed the judgment of Ramprakash (supra) and granted regular pay scale from the date of classification. This was unsuccessfully challenged in WA No. 641/2012. The said writ appeal was dismissed on 8.10.2012. A three- Judges Bench of Apex Court dismissed the SLP on 21.1.2015. The order for grant of pay scale on attaining permanency is not disturbed.
7. During the course of argument, Shri Newaskar, learned Deputy Government Advocate submitted that each case needs to be examined to ascertain whether the order classifying the petitioner as permanent employee still subsists or not. The response of Shri B.P.Singh is that the respondents may examine this aspect and if petitioners are classified as permanent employee and said order is still intact, the benefits be directed to be given.
8. In view of judgment of Ramprakash (supra) and in Writ Appeal No.110/2011, it is clear that the status of permanent employee achieved under the Standing Orders is also through a statutory way. Such employee cannot be deprived from the scale of pay attached to the said post and other benefits. Once an employee is classified as permanent employee under the Standing Orders, his nature of initial appointment/birth mark pales into insignificance.
9. In this view of the matter, I deem it proper to dispose of these petitions with following directions:-
(1) The petitioners shall file separate applications 8 WP No. 6762/2012 along with the order by which they were classified as permanent employee and submit it before the respondents. The petitioners may claim regular pay scale from the date of classification, seniority and other benefits based on it.
(2) The respondents shall examine the case of each of the petitioners and if their classification orders are not cancelled or disturbed, provide them regular pay scale attached to the permanent post on which they were classified. The difference of pay of regular post will be available to the petitioners from the date of their classification.
(3) The petitioners shall prefer aforesaid application within fifteen days along with copy of this order.
The respondents shall undertake aforesaid exercise of scrutiny and payment to eligible persons within eight months therefrom.
(4) If the respondents find that the petitioners were made permanent by classification, they will be entitled for seniority from the said date. Necessary orders and action be taken in this regard. The respondents while undertaking the aforesaid exercise shall consider the claim of the petitioners for other benefits like DA, etc. (if claimed). The entire exercise be completed within eight months from the date of submission of application along with copy of this order.
(5) Needless to mention that if for any justifiable reason, any petitioner is not found entitled for any of the benefits claimed, a detailed and reasoned order be passed and communicated to the petitioner within the aforesaid time.
(6) It is made clear that the orders passed in 9 WP No. 6762/2012 Ramprakash (supra) and WA 110/2011 shall be treated as judgment in rem and it will not be open for the respondents to reject the claim on the ground that the present petitioners were not litigants in Ramprakash (supra) and W.A. No. 110/2011. If they are otherwise similarly situated, similar benefits be extended in their favour. (7) Petitions are disposed of with aforesaid directions.
10. Registry is directed to keep true copy of this order in all the connected writ petitions.
(Sujoy Paul)
Yog/ Judge