Madhya Pradesh High Court
Mahesh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 21 September, 2021
Author: Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari
Bench: Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH,
BENCH AT GWALIOR
W.P. No. 17529/2021
( Mahesh and others Vs. The State of M.P & others)
(1)
Gwalior, dated : 21/9/2021
Shri Shyam Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners.
Shri Rohit Mishra, Additional Advocate General for
respondents/State.
I.A. No.11721/2021, an application for urgent hearing is allowed.
The present petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief:
"7.1 That, the case of petitioner decided by the respondent in the light of the decision of Appex Court in the case of Ram Naresh Rawat V/s Ashwani Ray reported in 2017 (3) SCC 436.
7.2 That, the case of the petitioner similar to the writ petition No.26249/2019 and same relief may kindly be granted.
7.3 That, the any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper may also be given to the petitioner along with costs."
Petitioners submit that despite having been classified as permanent employee, no benefit of regular pay scale has been extended to them.
It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioners that identical petitions have already been disposed of by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court by order dated 5.9.2018 passed in W.P. No.20650/2018, relevant portion whereof reads as under:
"The law in regard to the benefits flowing from an order of classification is now settled in view of the decision of Apex Court in the case of Ram Naresh Rawat Vs. HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT GWALIOR W.P. No. 17529/2021 ( Mahesh and others Vs. The State of M.P & others) (2) Ashwini Ray reported in 2017 (Vol 3) SCC 436, relevant extract of which is reproduced below for convenience and ready reference:
4........ The precise submission is that once they are conferred the status of permanent employee by the court and it is also categorically held that they are entitled to regular pay attached to the said post, not only the pay should be fixed in the regular pay scale, the petitioners would also be entitled to the increments and other emoluments attached to the said post.
18.Insofar as petitioners before us are concerned they have been classified as 'permanent'. For this reason, we advert to the core issue, which would determine the fate of these cases, viz., whether these employees can be treated as 'regular' employees in view of the aforesaid classification? In other words, with their classification as 'permanent', do they stand regularized in service?
26. From the aforesaid, it follows that though a 'permanent employee' has right to receive pay in the graded pay-scale, at the same time, he would be getting only minimum of the said pay-scale with no increments.
It is only the regularisation in service which would entail grant of increments etc. in the pay-scale.
27. In view of the aforesaid, we do not find any substance in the contentions raised by the petitioners in these contempt petitions. We are conscious of the fact that in some cases, on earlier occasions, the State Government while fixing the pay scale, granted increments as well. However, if some persons are given the benefit wrongly, that cannot form the basis of claiming the same relief. It is trite that right to equality under Article 14 is not in negative terms (See Indian Council of Agricultural Research & Anr. v. T.K. Suryanarayan & Ors.9 ).
28. These contempt petitions are, accordingly, dismissed"
In view of above, it is directed that in case it is found that the classification of the petitioners is intact, the petitioners shall be paid minimum of the pay scale admissible to the post on which they have been classified as permanent employee without any increment. If HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT GWALIOR W.P. No. 17529/2021 ( Mahesh and others Vs. The State of M.P & others) (3) any arrears are worked out, the same shall be paid as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of three months.
With the aforesaid directions, the instant petition stands disposed of.
(S.A.Dharmadhikari) Judge (and) ANAND SHRIVASTAVA 2021.09.22 10:32:39 +05'30'