Madhya Pradesh High Court
The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Maharaj Singh on 9 July, 2018
1
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
R.P.No.343/2017
(State of M.P. and others Vs. Maharaj Singh )
Gwalior, Dated : 9.7.2018
Shri Praveen Newaskar, learned Government Advocate for the
petitioners/State.
Shri B.P. Singh, learned counsel for the respondent.
There is delay of 623 days in filing present petition; condonation whereof is being sought vide I.A. No.2970/2017.
For the reasons which find mention in application which prevented the petitioners from filing the petition, sufficient cause is made out. Consequently, delay is condoned.
I.A. No.2970/2017 stands disposed of.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the issue raised in the present petition is squarely covered by the decision of Division Bench of this Court in R.P. No.264/2017 and batch of petitions decided on 24.05.2018.
In Review Petition No.264/2017 and connected Review Petitions following order was passed :
18. Conspectus of above discussion compels this court to hold that the employee declared permanent by way of classification under the Industrial Law cannot be equated at least on the pecuniary front with the employee who has been appointed substantively after following due process of law prescribed under the statutory rules/constitutional provisions. This marked difference of non-entitlement to increment to classified 2 employees has been recognized by the Apex Court since long as explained above and therefore, the contention of the respondent employees herein that the Apex Court took this view for the first time in Ram Naresh Rawat (supra) is liable to be and is rejected.
19. Once it is held that the Supreme Court has been consistently treating these two class of employees to be distinct at least on the pecuniary front, we are of the considered view that the orders under review having been passed in variance to the said consistent view held by the Apex Court since long, suffer from palpable error and thus deserve to be reviewed for the sake of maintaining judicial discipline.
20. Consequently, all the review petitions mentioned in Para 1 supra are allowed and the orders under review are set aside.
As the issue involved in present Review Petition is identical to the issue raised in Review Petition No.264/2017, the present Review Petition is also allowed in the same terms as Review Petition No.264/2017 and the order passed on 24.05.2018 shall apply mutatis mutandis.
(Sanjay Yadav) (Ashok Kumar Joshi)
Judge Judge
Pawar/-
ASHISH PAWAR
2018.07.11 11:01:03
+05'30'