Madhya Pradesh High Court
The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Bhagirath Tale Judgement Given By: ... on 17 December, 2013
W.A. No.922/2013
17.12.2013
Shri Swapnil Ganguly, Dy. Govt. Advocate for the
appellants.
Shri Pushpendra Yadav, Advocate for respondents.
It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for respondents No.1 and 2 that the controversy involved in this case is squarely covered by the order dated 09.07.2013 passed in W.A. No.1301/2013 (State of M.P. and others vs. Kishori Lal Prajapati and others).
The aforesaid position is not disputed on facts. It is also brought to our notice that against such an order, an S.L.P. (Civil) No.(s).28227/2013 was preferred before the Apex Court but it was dismissed by the Apex Court by an order dated 16.09.2013 which reads thus:-
The petitioners, who appear to have violated the provisions of Section 2 (ra) and (4) read with Fifth Schedule of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 by continuing the respondents as daily wage employees for more than two decades have filed this petition under Article 136 of the Constitution for setting aside the order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court which, in our considered view, is most innocuous.
The respondents had filed an application before the State Administrative Tribunal for regularisation of their services and for payment of salary and allowances at par with regular employees.
At the hearing of the application, learned counsel appearing for the respondents gave up their claim for regularization and pleaded that they will feel satisfied, a phenomena usually witnessed in the Court proceedings involving poor and down trodden, if they are paid minimum of the regular time scale.
The Tribunal accepted the submission of the learned counsel and passed order dated 15.12.2000, the relevant portion of which reads as under:
"So far as the claim of the applicants for the grant of minimum pay in the pay scale of the post on which they are working are concerned such claims are fully covered by the earlier division bench decision of this tribunal rendered in the case of Bharat Darshan Shrivastava and others vs. State of M.P. and others 1998 M.P.S.L.R. 278. Hence by allowing the petition the respondent are directed to pay the wages to the applicants on the basis of minimum of the pay scale of the post against which the applicants are working along with all applicable allowances but without benefit of increments. This payment be made with effects from the date of filing of this petition. Payment of arrears shall be made within three months from the date of this order with the aforesaid order and direction this case is disposed off finally."
When the State Government accepted the recommendations of the 6th Pay Commission and framed Madhya Pradesh Salary Revision Rules, 2009, the respondents claimed revision of the minimum of the pay scale.
The Division Bench of the High Court adverted to the order passed by the Tribunal and held that the respondents are entitled to the benefits under the revised pay scale.
We have heard Shri S.K. Dubey, learned senior counsel for the petitioners and carefully scanned the record.
We are in complete agreement with the High Court that the respondents are entitled to the benefits of the 6th Pay Commission and the petitioners are bound to enhance their pay by fixing their salary at the minimum of the revised pay scale.
With the above observations, the special leave petition is dismissed.
The petitioners are directed to implement the order of the High Court within a period of three months failing which they shall have to pay interest to the respondents at the rate of twelve per cent per annum from the date of enforcement of the revised pay rules till the date of actual payment.
The Registry is directed to send copies of this order to the respondents at the addresses mentioned in the memo of the special leave petition. If the petitioners fail to pay their dues in terms of the order of the High Court, then the respondents shall be free to initiate proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971."
As the matter has been traveled to the Apex Court and the order passed by this Court in W.A. No.1301/2012 has been affirmed by the aforesaid direction, this appeal is also disposed of in view of order dated 16.09.2013 by the Apex Court.
No order as to costs.
(Krishn Kumar Lahoti) (K.K. Trivedi)
Judge Judge
psm