Madhya Pradesh High Court
Santosh Kumar Parashar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 1 February, 2013
1
W.P. No.15031/2006(S)
01.02.2013
Shri Ashok Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the
petitioner.
Smt. Sheetal Dubey, learned Gov. Advocate for the
respondent State of M. P.
Heard.
Order dated 03.05.2006 is being challenged vide this writ petition.
Vide impugned order petitioner who was granted minimum of the pay scale to the post of Typist has been relegated to the Collector's rate of wages.
Back ground facts briefly are that petitioner engaged as skilled labour in Narmada Valley Development Department was paid wages as per Collector's rate. Asserting that he is working as Typist , petitioner lay a claim for equal pay for equal work, vide original application No.1035/1999 before M.P. Administrative Tribunal. Said Original Application was decided on 15.10.2001 whereby, though his claim for equal pay for equal work was declined ; however, the respondents were directed to grant minimum of the pay scale of the post against which the petitioner was required to work. Consequently by order dated 30.09.2004 petitioner was given the said benefit. Later on by order dated 15.07.2005, the earlier order dated 30.09.2004 was withdrawn and the petitioner was 2 relegated to the stage of Collector's rate of wage. Aggrieved petitioner filed this writ petition No.6295/2005 (s) during pendency whereof order was passed on 27.7.2005 which rendered W. P. No.6297/2005
(s) infructous subsequent thereafter order was passed on 03.05.2006 relegating the petitioner to the status of daily wager on Collector's rate. This order is being questioned vide this petition.
The respondents by filing return though justify their action on the strength of decision rendered in Rajendra Sen V. State of Madhya Pradesh :
W.P.No.7858/2006 and the decision in State of Haryana V. Tilak : AIR 2003 SC 2658 that being engaged on daily wages and not against any vacant posts have no vested right to claim minimum of the scale of the post in regular establishment even if they are required to discharge similar work to that.
The question however is whether in a case as at hand where the wage as determined by an order passed by Court of law is being granted and the decision on the basis whereof the remuneration is paid has attained finality whether on the basis of subsequent decisions the remuneration can be withdrawn by relegating the incumbent to predecisional stage.
The answer is not to be searched for as the same has been addressed at by the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No. 587/2007 :State of M.P. And 3 others V. Smt. Rani Gangrade and other Connected Writ Appeals decided on 4.12.2009.
It has been held therein:
2. On an earlier occasion original petitioners and number of others have filed original applications before the State Administrative Tribunal and secured orders in their favour for grant of minimum of the payscale. Undisputedly the said orders were challenged before the Court in W.P.No.5102/99;
after dismissal of the said writ petition the SLP was filed which was also dismissed. After the judgment attained finality the original petitioners were given benefit of minimum of the payscale vide order dated 11.10.200. It appears that after pronouncement of the order judgment by the Supreme Court the present appellants have observed that the earliest judgment delivered intra- party has become bad judgment the original petitioners would not be entitled to get the benefit of minimum of the payscale therefore, the order be recalled and the recovery be made.
3. The learned single Judge after hearing the parties came to the conclusion that the direction to grant minimum of the payscale was issued by the Tribunal or this Court in the case of the petitioners and if in pursuance thereto the original petitioners were allowed minimum of the pay then grant of 4 such benefit /relief could not be withdrawn by executing fiat.
4. Shri Kutumbale, learned counsel for the State vehemently contended that if the benefits were given to the original petitioners under the directions of Tribunal or this court and later on it is found that the judgment of the Tribunal or this Court is bad then the appellants are justified in recalling the orders and making the recovery . In our opinion the approach of the appellants is patently illegal because it does not take into consideration that the earlier judgment intraparty has attained finality. The judgment delivered earlier may not be held to be good or may not be observed in cases of others but intraparty when a wrong judgment attained finality the interest and rights of the parties are to be called out from the said judgment . In the present matter on earlier occasions if the Tribunal or the High Court held that the original petitioners were entitled to benefits then appellants shall have no authority to set aside the said judgment or sit over it and say that the earlier judgments were wrong."
That SLP (Civil) CC 8879/2010 preferred against the aforesaid decision was dismissed by Supreme Court on 6.7.2010.
The case at hand being not different than that of Smt. Rani Gangrade the impugned order dated 5 03.05.2006 is hereby quashed. The respondents should restore the pay of the petitioner to the minimum of pay scale and pay arrears of pay from 03.05.2006 within a period of three months failing which petitioner would be entitled for interest @ 7.5% thereon from expiry of three months till final payment.
The petition is allowed to the extent above no costs.
(SANJAY YADAV) JUDGE Loretta & Das