Madhya Pradesh High Court
Vipin & 3 Ors. vs State Of M.P. & Ors. on 16 February, 2017
~1~
WP No. 108/2009
16/2/2017
Shri Rahul Laad learned counsel for petitioners.
Shri Milind Phadke learned counsel for respondents/State.
Heard finally with consent.
By this writ petition, the petitioners are seeking a direction to the respondents to grant two increments as has been granted to System Analyst as also to consider and decide the petitioner's representation for grant of increments.
In brief the case of petitioners is that after adopting due selection process the petitioners were appointed on contract basis on the post of Data Entry Operator on the fix pay of Rs. 6,000/- p.m.. Thereafter the pay of petitioners has not been increased whereas the System Analysts who were appointed on contract basis in the department in the year 2002 in the pay of Rs. 8,000/- their salary was later increased to Rs. 12,000/- and thereafter to Rs. 15,000/-. The petitioners have sought same benefit.
Having heard the learned counsel for parties and on perusal of the record, it is noticed that initial appointment of petitioners was not on any regular post but it was only a contract appointment. In the order of appointment dated 29/6/2002 Annex.P-2 itself it was mentioned that petitioners will get fix salary of Rs. 6,000/- per month during the contract period and no other allowances, such as special pay, DA, City Compensatory Allowance, HRA etc. will be paid to the petitioners. The petitioners being contract appointee are governed by the terms of contract.
So far as the case of System Analyst is concerned they are governed by their own contract terms and conditions and there is ~2~ nothing on record to show that they are performing same work as that of petitioners.
That apart the reply filed by respondents also reveals that subsequently the pay of petitioners has been revised vide order dated 24/11/09 from Rs. 6,000/- to 8,000/- p.m. Counsel for petitioners has placed reliance upon judgment of Supreme court in the matter of State of Punjab and others Vs. Jagjit Singh and others reported in AIR 2016 SC 5176 but benefit of said judgment cannot be granted to petitioners because in writ petition no foundation has been laid by petitioners for attracting the principle of Equal Pay for Equal Work. It has also not been disclosed that any equivalent regular post exists in the department or the petitioners are performing the same work as that of any regular post in the department or same work as contract system analyst.
In view of the aforesaid analysis I am of the opinion that the prayer for grant of two increments as has been granted to the System Analyst cannot be allowed. However, since the petitioner's pay was revised in the year 2009 and thereafter almost 7 years have passed, therefore, the respondents are required to consider if any further upward revision of pay of the petitioners is required.
Hence the writ petition is disposed off by permitting the petitioners to file an appropriate representation before respondent no.2 seeking further enhancement of pay. If such a representation is filed by petitioners the same will be considered and decided by respondent no.2 within a period of three months from the date of its receipt in accordance with law.
C.C. as per rules.
~3~ (Prakash Shrivastava) Judge BDJ