Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sanjay Lokhande vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 14 August, 2018
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
W.P. No. 5531/2016
1 Sanjay Lokhande V/s. State of M.P. & others.
Indore, dated : 14.08.2018
Shri Kamlesh Mandloi, learned counsel for the
petitioner.
Shri Abhinav Malhotra, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondents, State.
With consent, heard finally.
ORDER
The petitioner has filed the present petition being aggrieved by order dated 7.12.2015 by which pay-scale of Rs.2200- 4000/- and revised pay-scale of Rs.8000-13500/- have been denied to him.
2. The petitioner was initially appointed as Development Officer in respondent No.4, Institution and after attaining the age of superannuation, he has retired on the same post. Respondent No.4 is an Institution working for the differently abled persons and getting financial aid from the Department of Social Justice and Welfare Department, Bhopal.
3. According to the petitioner, as per circular dated 10.3.1988 (Annexure P/2), he is entitled to receive pay-scale at par with the Gazetted and non-Gazetted employees working in the Social Welfare Department of the State. By letter dated 13.9.1994, the Additional Secretary has directed the Director of Panchayat and Social Service, M.P. to collect the information as to whether direction issued by circular dated 10.3.1988 are being complied with or not. Thereafter, State Government issued another instructions for grant of salary and other facilities to the employees working in an institution working for the welfare of handicapped THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH W.P. No. 5531/2016 2 Sanjay Lokhande V/s. State of M.P. & others.
persons. One of the circular is dated 29.9.1994 is filed as Annexure P/4. Petitioner submitted his representation before the Joint Director, who has turned down the same on the ground that the petitioner was not appointed under the Recruitment Rules framed by the State Government for recruitment of Government employees and, therefore, he is not entitled for the benefits at par with the employees of the State Government.
4. After notice, the respondents have filed the return by submitting that at the time of recruitment in the Government Departments i.e. Social Justice and Disabled Person Welfare Department, the educational qualification and age criteria has to be followed, but the petitioner is not fulfilling the criteria fixed under the Recruitment Rules, therefore, he cannot claim the benefits equivalent to the post of Superintendent working in the Government establishment.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
6. The respondents have conveniently avoided to file the para-wise reply to the petition. When the petitioner has specifically placed reliance on the circular dated 10.3.1988 followed by 13.9.1994, then it was incumbent on the State Government to file a para-wise reply as to why these circulars are not applicable to the petitioner. In absence of para-wise reply, the contention and the documents relied on by the petitioner are acceptable. The circular dated 10.3.1988 specifically provides that the employees working in the institutions running under Social Welfare Department are entitled to the benefit at par with the Government employees. There is no material on record to show as to whether the circular dated THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH W.P. No. 5531/2016 3 Sanjay Lokhande V/s. State of M.P. & others.
10.3.1988 is superseded or cancelled by the State Government. Admittedly, the Recruitment Rules viz. M.P. Panchayat and Social Welfare (Gazetted) Service Recruitment Rules, 1998 are not applicable to the petitioner because he was not appointed under the said Rules, but the State Government gives them a right to claim the benefit at par with the Government employees by way of letter/circular dated 10.3.1988, therefore, his claim has wrongly been rejected on the ground that he was not fulfilling the qualifications and age criteria. The petitioner is a retired Development Officer and this fact is not in dispute.
6. In view of the above, this petition deserves to be and is hereby allowed and the impugned order dated 7.12.2015 is quashed. The respondents are directed to re-examine the entire case of the petitioner in respect of payment of pay-scale and revised pay-scale, as claimed by the petitioner in the light of letter/circular dated 10.3.1988. The entire exercise be completed within 60 days from today.
With the aforesaid, this petition stands disposed of.
( VIVEK RUSIA ) JUDGE Alok/- Digitally signed by Alok Gargav Date: 2018.08.16 10:11:34 +05'30'