Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ramesh Kumar Sharma vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 6 February, 2019
1
WP. No. 29669-2018
(Ramesh Kumar Sharma Vs. State of M.P. and others)
Gwalior:Dated:6-2-2019.
Ku. Somya Chaturvedi, Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Rajendra Jain, Government Advocate for the
respondents/State.
With the consent of parties, this petition is disposed of finally. The petitioner seeks directions to the respondents to grant the benefit of minimum pay scale to the petitioner as laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Ram Naresh Rawat vs.Ashwani Rai (2017) 3 SCC 436. The respondents are not extending the benefit, inspite of the fact that he has been classifiedas permanent employee.
It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner 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. 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 2 WP. No. 29669-2018 (Ramesh Kumar Sharma Vs. State of M.P. and others) 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 payscale,at the same time, he would be getting only minimum of the said payscale with no increments. It is only the regularization 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 if it is found that the classification of the petitioner is intact, the petitioner shall be paid the minimum of the pay scale admissible to the post on which he has been classified as permanent employee without any increment. If 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)
binu/- Judge
BINU PILLAI
2019.02.06
17:36:37 -08'00'