Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ram Jhal Kushwah vs State Of M.P. on 30 November, 2017
1
WP No.3014/2012
(Ram Jhal Kushwah v. State of MP & Others)
Gwalior, Dated : 30.11.2017
Shri D.P. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Vivek Mishra, learned Government Advocate for
the respondents-State.
Heard.
Petitioner has filed this petition claiming that he was appointed as Chowkidar in the year 1981 and thereafter vide order dated 05.12.1986 Annexure P/7, he was declared as a temporary member of Contingency Service and was granted Pay Scale of Rs.380-495/-.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the petitioner had furnished his option for training, which is granted to those persons who have passed Higher Secondary Examination with the relevant science subjects for promotion to the post of AVFO, but despite his options, he was not deputed for training and the persons junior to him like Shri Deen Dayal Son of Ramsewak were deputed for training and this has caused prejudice to the petitioner.
3. Petitioner further submits that in the alternative he has already put in more than 30 years of service and has not been granted any benefit of Kramonnati/Time Scale of Pay, therefore, in the light of the law laid down in the case of Smt. Kamla Devi Tiwari v. State of MP & Another as reported in 2005 (1) MPHT 22 (NOC), his case should be considered for grant of Time Scale of Pay/Kramonnati as per the policy of the State Government.
4. As far as the petitioner's claim for parity with Shri Deen Dayal is concerned, the learned counsel for the State submits that the petitioner was not a regular member of the 2 WP No.3014/2012 (Ram Jhal Kushwah v. State of MP & Others) Contingency Paid and Workcharged Establishment, whereas it is apparent from the order Annexure P/6 filed by the petitioner dated 25.01.1990 that Shri Deen Dayal was regularized in the Contingency Establishment w.e.f. 01.12.1989, whereas there is no order on record showing that the petitioner was ever regularized in the Contingency Establishment or in any other Establishment. Therefore, the learned counsel for the State submits that the petitioner was not entitled to any benefit of being deputed for training, which may have entitled him for promotion as AVFO.
5. Shri Vivek Mishra further submits that as far as Kramonnati/Time Scale of Pay is concerned, the petitioner has placed reliance on GAD Circular dated 24.01.2008 Annexure P/5, which is for the members of State Civil Services and, therefore, the said circular is not applicable to the petitioner. However, he agrees that the State Government can be given a direction to consider the case of the petitioner for grant of Kramonnati in terms of the decision rendered by this Court in the case of Smt. Kamla Devi Tiwari (Supra) subject to provisions in the Rules for such grant of Kramonnati to the members of the Contingency Establishment.
6. In view of the aforesaid, it is held that the petitioner has failed to make out a case for his deputation on training for further promotion as AVFO inasmuch as Shri Deen Dayal was regularized on 01.12.1989, whereas the petitioner was never regularized as per the documents available on record in the Contingency Paid Establishment, therefore, the claim 3 WP No.3014/2012 (Ram Jhal Kushwah v. State of MP & Others) of the petitioner for training is rejected.
7. As far as consideration of his case for grant of Kramonnati is concerned, the State Government shall consider his case within three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order being passed today in terms of the prevailing Rules and Regulations and the law laid down by the High Court in the case of Smt. Kamla Devi Tiwari (Supra) and decide the said claim through a speaking order within the aforesaid time.
With the aforesaid, the writ petition is disposed of. Certified copy as per rules.
(Vivek Agarwal) Judge meh/-
MEHFOOZ AHMED 2017.12.01 16:48:59 +05'30'