Madhya Pradesh High Court
Annulal Dahariya vs High Court Of M.P. on 20 September, 2017
W.P.No. 9897/2016
(Annulal Dahariya and Ors... Vs. ... High of M.P. & Anr.)
-1-
20-9-2017
Shri Praveen Kumar Verma, learned counsel for
the petitioners.
Shri K.N. Fakhruddin, learned counsel for the
respondent No.1.
Shri Deepak Awasthy, learned Deputy Advocate General with Shri Anubhav Jain, Government Advocate for the respondent/State.
This petition has been filed by the petitioners being aggrieved by orders Annexures P/1 and P/2 both dated 2.6.2016, whereby the respondent authorities have withdrawn the order passed in favour of the petitioners granting them benefit of first and second time bound increments under the scheme of the State Government dated 17-3-1999/19-4-1999 and modified by the State from time to time.
The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the impugned orders have been issued by the authorities on the ground that the petitioners were and are not entitled to count the period of contingency service rendered by them for the purposes of claiming benefit under the aforesaid scheme. The learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that this issue has already been considered by this Court in several cases and similarly placed employees have been granted relief. It is W.P.No. 9897/2016 (Annulal Dahariya and Ors... Vs. ... High of M.P. & Anr.) -2- submitted that in such circumstances, the respondent authorities were bound to consider the period of contingency service rendered by the petitioners for the purposes of granting them benefit under the scheme and denial of the same amounts to discrimination and violates the fundamental rights of the petitioners under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
The learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the High Court had infact favourably recommended the case of the petitioners but the authorities of the State have not taken this relevant aspect into consideration or the fact that several similarly situated employees have already been granted the relief while rejecting the claim of the petitioners. The learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on several orders passed in identical cases in support of his submissions.
The learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that by circular dated 22.2.2005 the State has itself modified the scheme dated 17.3.1999/19.4.1999 and granted benefit under the said scheme to Work Charged and Contingency Paid drivers and since then all Work Charged and Contingency Paid drivers have been granted this benefit but the authorities of the State by ignoring their own circulars have withdrawn W.P.No. 9897/2016 (Annulal Dahariya and Ors... Vs. ... High of M.P. & Anr.) -3- the order granting benefit to the petitioners who had all worked as Work Charged Contingency Paid drivers, without applying their minds to the circulars and the orders and therefore, the impugned orders suffer from non- application of mind and arbitrariness.
The learned counsel appearing for the respondent/High Court submits that the case of the petitioners was favourably recommended by them to the State Government pursuant to which initially orders were passed granting the petitioners benefit of time bound increments on 6.8.2011, however, subsequently on audit objections being raised, the respondent authorities have issued the impugned orders.
The learned Deputy Advocate General appearing for the respondent/State submits that under the scheme of 1999, contingency paid employees were not entitled to award of time bound increments and it is on this count that the impugned orders have been issued after examining the matter on an objection being raised by the Finance Department. He, however, submits that it is not a disputed fact that the State by its circular dated 22.2.2005 had amended the time bound increment scheme dated 17.3.1999/19.4.1999 and granted benefit thereunder to Work Charged and Contingency Paid drivers.
W.P.No. 9897/2016(Annulal Dahariya and Ors... Vs. ... High of M.P. & Anr.) -4- The learned Deputy Advocate General for the State fairly states that the contention of the petitioners to the effect that several petitions have been allowed by this Court granting benefit of time bound increment not just to the Work Charged and Contingency Paid drivers but also to others and that the orders passed by this Court have been upheld by the Supreme Court, is correct.
Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, it is observed that under the scheme of 17.3.1999/19.4.1999 providing for grant of time bound increments, as amended by circular dated 22.2.2005 (Annexure P/18), Work Charged and Contingency Paid drivers are entitled to grant of benefit of time bound increments. In the present case it is also an undisputed fact that the petitioners were working as Work Charged Contingency Paid drivers. It is also observed from a perusal of the order passed by this Court in the case of K.L. Asre Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and others, W.P.(S) No.1070/2003 decided on 7.11.2005 and the decision in the case of Teju Lal Yadav Vs. State of MP and others, W.P. No.11507/2007 (S) decided on 23.1.2009, that this Court has extended the benefit of time bound increments not just to Work Charged and Contingency Paid drivers but also to other Work Charged and W.P.No. 9897/2016 (Annulal Dahariya and Ors... Vs. ... High of M.P. & Anr.) -5- Contingency Paid employees and the orders passed by this Court in the aforesaid writ petitions have been affirmed by this Court in W.A. No.630/2010 decided on 5.3.2013 and W.A. No.966/2009 decided on 27.10.2009 respectively. It is also apparent that the aforesaid orders passed in writ appeals have been affirmed and confirmed by the Supreme Court in SLP (Civil) No.8436/2014 and SLP (Civil) No.14582/2010. It is pertinent to note that while dismissing the SLPs filed by the State on the ground of delay, SLP (Civil) No.14582/2010 was dismissed by the Supreme Court on the ground of delay as well as on merits.
It is also worth noting that this Court in W.A. No.912/2015 and connected matters decided on 4.5.2016 has taken all these aspects into consideration and have thereafter rejected the contention of the respondent/State to the effect that Work Charged and Contingency Paid employees were not entitled for benefit of time bound increments under the scheme of 1999.
In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it is apparent that the issue raised by the petitioners is squarely covered and stands concluded by the decision of this Court rendered in W.A. No.912/2015 and connected matters decided on 4.5.2016 as well as the dismissal of the Special Leave Petitions filed by the W.P.No. 9897/2016 (Annulal Dahariya and Ors... Vs. ... High of M.P. & Anr.) -6- State on merits.
In the circumstances, we find substance in the submission of learned counsel for the petitioners that the impugned orders, Annexures P/1 and P/2, dated 2.6.2016 have been passed by the authorities without applying their mind to the facts of the case of the petitioners who are all Work Charged and Contingency Paid drivers and that the impugned orders withdrawing the benefit of time bound increments granted to the petitioners results in violating their Fundamental Rights under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and therefore the impugned orders dated 2.6.2016 (Annexures P/1 and P/2) are accordingly quashed.
The petition filed by the petitioners is allowed and the benefit granted to the petitioners vide order dated 6.8.2011 stands restored.
In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.
Certified copy as per rules.
(R.S. Jha) (Nandita Dubey)
Judge Judge
pp.