Madhya Pradesh High Court
Chief Engineer State Of M.P. And Anr. vs Devi Singh And 4 Others on 14 August, 2024
Author: Pranay Verma
Bench: Pranay Verma
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-IND:23248
1 WP-13361-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRANAY VERMA
ON THE 14 th OF AUGUST, 2024
WRIT PETITION No. 13361 of 2013
CHIEF ENGINEER STATE OF M.P. AND ANR. AND OTHERS
Versus
DEVI SINGH AND 4 OTHERS AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Anirudh Malpani, Government Advocate for the petitioners/State.
Shri Ramkrishna Shastri, learned counsel for the respondents.
ORDER
By this writ petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have challenged the award dated 20.05.2013 passed by the Labour Court, Ujjain by which the respondents have been directed to be paid regular pay scale from the date of their classification as permanent employees i.e. 09.07.2022.
2. Though various grounds have been raised in the petition but at the outset, learned counsel for the respondents has drawn attention of this Court to order dated 03.02.2016 passed in W.P. No.2741 of 2015 (State of M.P. and Another Vs. Govind Jainimal and Others) whereby similar controversy has been settled by taking into consideration the order dated 27.08.2014 passed in SLP No.2057-2058 of 2014 by the Apex Court whereby the SLP preferred by the State of Madhya Pradesh in similar circumstances has been dismissed.
3. Taking into consideration the decision of the Apex Court the contentions of the petitioners therein had been rejected. In the present matter also similar dispute has been raised by the petitioners i.e. whether they can be directed Signature Not Verified Signed by: JYOTI CHOURASIA Signing time: 16-8-24 13:46:08 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-IND:23248 2 WP-13361-2013 to pay regular pay scale from the date the respondents have been classified as permanent employees.
4. In W.P. No.2741 of 2015 it has been held by this Court is as under:
"Learned counsel for the respondents/State has submitted before this Court that similar matters are still pending before the Hon'ble Apex Court and on the contrary learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1, on advance notice, has brought to the notice of this Court that the order dated 27.08.2014 passed in SLP Nos.2057-2058 of 2014 by which the SLP preferred by the State of Madhya Pradesh, in similar circumstances has been dismissed. The Apex Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Dilip Singh Patel has passed the following order:
Leave granted.
"These appeals have been preferred by appellants- State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. Against the judgment and order dated 30th March, 2012 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Bench at Gwalior in Writ Appeal No.163 of 2012 and order dated 2nd November 2012 passed in Review Petition No.148 of 2012. By the impugned judgment, the Division Bench of the High Court affirmed the order dated 14th February 2012 passed by learned Single Judge in W.P. No.5212 of 2009 (S) and the review petition against the saidj order was dismissed.
The factual matrix of the case is as follows:
The respondents-employees were classified as permanent employees as per the statutory provisions of M.P. Standing Standards orders. However, they were not granted the benefit of Sixth Pay Commission. Learned Single Judge after taking into consideration the facts an circumstances of the case and the judgment of the High Court in 'Engineering-in-Chief' P.H.E.D. and Others vs. Budha Rao Magarde and Others' 2012(1) M.P.L.J. 385 held that the respondents- employees are eligible to receive revised scale after their classification. This order was affirmed by Division Bench.
Learned counsel appearing for the State submitted that the respondents who were daily wage employees were classified as permanent employees are not entitled for revised scale of pay in terms of Sixth Pay Commission. Per Contra, according to learned counsel for the Signature Not Verified Signed by: JYOTI CHOURASIA Signing time: 16-8-24 13:46:08 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-IND:23248 3 WP-13361-2013 respondents, the respondents were classified as permanent employees as per the statutory provision of the M.P. Standing Standards orders are entitled for the revised scale of pay. He further submits that respondent Nos.1 and 2 are already receiving regular scale of pay.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. It appears that the respondents earlier moved before the Administrative Tribunal, Gwalior by filing original applications such as OA No.348 of 1995, OA No.293 of 1991 etc. In compliance of the orders passed in such original applications, the Chief Engineer, Yamuna Kachhar, Water Resources Department, Gwalior (MP) by orders issued in between April 2004 and June 2004 provided the minimum wages and allowances to the respondents without increment as per the Schedule of the pay scale from the date of the order of the Tribunal. It was further ordered that the regularization of the daily wages employees shall be made as per the seniority list with the procedure and the benefit of increment and other benefits can only be granted after the regularization as per the Rules. It was ordered that the order of the Court for benefit of minimum wages and allowances shall be effected from the issuance of those orders.
From the aforesaid facts, it is clear that the respondents are entitled for minimum wages and allowances as per the fixed Schedule of the pay scale but without any increment. In such case, if the pay-scale is revised from time to time including the pay scale as revised pursuant to Sixth Pay Commission, the respondents will be entitled to minimum wages and allowance as per said revised scale without increment. Only after regularization of their service, as per seniority and rules, they can claim the benefit of increment and other benefits.
In view of the aforesaid observations, while we are not inclined to interfere with the substantive part of the impugned judgment and order passed by learned Single Judge or the Division Bench or the order passed in Review Application, we modify the order dated 14th February, 2012 passed by learned single Judge in W.P. No.5212 of 2009 (S) as to the extent above. The benefits to which the respondents are entitled as per the observation as made above, if not paid be paid within two months. Those who are appointed on the regular pay-scale, they will be entitled to corresponding pay scale and other benefits.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: JYOTI CHOURASIA Signing time: 16-8-24 13:46:08NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-IND:23248 4 WP-13361-2013 The appeals stand disposed of"
Not only this in a similar case, this Court in Writ Petition No.2238/2014 has passed the following order:-
"This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners challenging the award of the Labour Court, Ujjain dated 19.10.2013 directing the petitioners to pay a sum of Rs.2,79,438/- as difference of wages from 1.1.2006 to 31.12.2010. The respondents claim that they were regularized in the year 2002 and were entitled for the regular pay scale from 2002 has been accepted by the Labour Court in the impugned award. When the matter is taken up today, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has submitted that the similar issue was involved in W.P. No.1748/2013 which was allowed by learned Single Judge of this Court by order dated 3.2.2014 and the Division Bench by order dated 14.8.2014 had dismissed the Writ Appeal No.584/2014, therefore, the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the same ground. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not disputed the above submission.
I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
The Division Bench of this Court while dismissing the Writ Appeal No.584/2014 by order dated 14.8.2014 has observed as under :-
"By filing this intra court appeal, the appellant/ State has challenged the order dated 03.02.2014 passed by learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No.1748/2013.
Before the Writ Court challenge was made to the order dated 21.08.2012 passed by the Labour Court, Ujjain in Case No.148/2011 Reference ID, whereby the Labour Court had directed the appellants to pay amount of Rs.2,79,438/- (regarding difference of salary from the period 01.01.2006 to 31.12.2010). The Labour Court, while passing the said award, placed reliance on a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of State of MP v. Rupram Yadav 2012 (1) MPWN 30 page 78 and Writ Petition No.9373/2010 (s) (Executive Engineer, Public Works Department v. Public Works Department Work- charged Labour Union) decided on 10.08.2011.
Taking into consideration that the question involved in this writ appeal has already been Signature Not Verified Signed by: JYOTI CHOURASIA Signing time: 16-8-24 13:46:08 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-IND:23248
5 WP-13361-2013 decided in number of petitions including Writ Petition No.1760/2013 (s) (The State of MP and another v. Prakash Chandra) decided on 06.09.2013, declined to interfere into the matter. Having regard to the aforesaid fact and the fact that on identical issue, this Court had decided various writ appeals, including Writ Appeal No.94/2014 decided on 06.02.2014 (State of MP through Executive Engineer, Water Resources Division, Shajapur v. Mazhar Alam s/o Faqruddin Qureshi and others), no case for taking a different view is made out.
The writ appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. Keeping in view the undisputed position before this court that the matter is squarely covered by the aforesaid Division Bench order of this Court, the present writ petition is also dismissed in view of the detailed reasons which have been assigned by the Division Bench in W.A. No.584/2014 (supra)"
Keeping in view the aforesaid, no case for interference is made out in the matter. The writ petition preferred by the State is dismissed. Certified copy as per rules."
5. In view of the aforesaid judgment of this Court, no case for interference is made out in the matter. The writ petition being devoid of merits is hereby dismissed.
(PRANAY VERMA) JUDGE jyoti Signature Not Verified Signed by: JYOTI CHOURASIA Signing time: 16-8-24 13:46:08