Madhya Pradesh High Court
Jagdish Prasad Patkar vs The State Of Mp on 23 February, 2021
Author: Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari
Bench: Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH,
BENCH AT GWALIOR
W.P.No.26036/2019
(Jagdish Prasad Patkar Vs. State of M.P. and others)
(1)
Gwalior, dated : 23.2.2021
Shri C.R.Roman, Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Naval Gupta, G.A. for the respondents/State.
Heard, finally with the consent of the parties.
This petition is filed claiming extension of benefit of judgment passed by this Court in the case of A.L. Thakur and others Vs. State of M.P. and others (W.P. No.16054/2003).
Learned counsel for the petitioner has claimed parity with the order passed by this Court in W.P. No.4413/2008, Lekh Singh Yadav & another Vs. State of M.P. & others and other connected writ petitions.
Learned Government Advocate appearing for the State fairly concedes to the same.
In case of Lekh Singh (supra), this Court after relying on the case of A.L. Thakur (Supra) has held :-
"10. The question regarding earlier matter relating to Laxmi Narayan Upadhyay (supra) was considered by this Court in A.L.Thakur. Para 5 of the judgment is reads as under:
"5 : After hearing the learned counsel for the parties at length and perusal of the record, this Court is of the opinion that there is no scope available to the respondent State to avoid giving the benefit of the pay scale as claimed by the petitioners specially when such issue has already attained finality on adjudication by the Tribunal and on account of accepting the same by the State Government. The nomenclature of the post of the 'Timekeeper' was changed sometimes in the year 1996 prior to it, it was known as Timekeeper. Now it is being known as 'Field Assistant'. The claim of Timekeeper, Field Assistant, Data Processor etc., were considered in HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT GWALIOR W.P.No.26036/2019 (Jagdish Prasad Patkar Vs. State of M.P. and others) (2) the case of Laxmi Narayan (supra) and was decided by the Tribunal by a detailed order as contained in Annx.A/4. The entire claim was considered by the Tribunal and it was categorically held in paragraph 6 that the persons like petitioners were entitled to the pay scale of Rs.515-800. If such a finding was accepted by the respondent State in case of Laxmi Narayan (supra) and in terms of the said decision, the order was issued way back in the year 1999 by deciding, not to file any appeal against such orders, it is not open to the State now to say that such benefit is not available to the petitioners. On the other hand, it was not open to the State to say that such a finding is not acceptable by them and that the matter was required to be referred to any High Power Committee or a Pay Commission or to any Expert body for obtaining any recommendation for grant of such benefit. Once a decision is rendered taking into account several facts by the authorities of law including the Tribunal, and the said order is accepted by the State Government, it cannot be said that the said order would not be applicable in case of similarly situated persons. The respondent State has utterly failed to demonstrate that persons like petitioners in these two petitions are not identically placed to those of Laxmi Narayan (supra) and others. In view of this, the petitioners would also be entitled to the very same benefits which the respondents have ex- tended to persons who have approached the Tribunal by way of filing different writ petitions as have been referred in Annx.A/7."
[Emphasis Supplied]
11. This Court almost devoted one complete page on the contention relating to Laxmi Narayan Upadhya (supra) and in clear terms held that the decision of Laxmi Narayan Upadhyay was passed in the year 1999. The Government did not file any appeal against the said order and, therefore, the petitioners are entitled to get the benefit of same pay scale (Rs.3050-4590/-) from 01.01.1996. Admittedly, the writ appeal and review petition filed by the Government in A.L. Thakur (supra) have already been dismissed by the Division Bench and the benefits granted in the case of A.L. Thakur (supra) have already been implemented for those petitioners. This is not in dispute that the present petitioners are also Time Keepers like A.L. Thakur in W.A. No.478/2013 decided on 09.12.2013. It appears that the Department HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT GWALIOR W.P.No.26036/2019 (Jagdish Prasad Patkar Vs. State of M.P. and others) (3) in the previous round placed heavy reliance on the Division Bench decision of Gwalior Bench on which heavy reliance is again placed today (W.P. No.940/2001 (State Vs. Kiran Rangnekar). The Division Bench opined that the observation in the case of Kiran Rangnekar (supra) are of no avail to distinguish the decision in A.L. Thakur's case. I am bound by the specific finding of Division Bench and it is no more open to the department to raise the same issue again before this Court.
12. At this stage, Shri Samdarshi Tiwari, learned Addl. Advocate General placed reliance on yet another Division Bench order passed in W.A. No.298/2009 decided on 29.07.2009 and order of Single Bench passed in W.P. No.10388/2014 (Annexure-R/16). In my view, the said orders will not make any difference. The order passed in W.A. No.298/2009 shows that the question of parity was not decided by the writ Court, indeed, the Court directed the petitioner therein to prefer representation and in turn, directed the respondents to decide the same. Similarly, in AnnexureR/16, a representation was preferred, which was rejected and the said rejection order got a stamp of approval from the Single Judge in the light of order of Kiran Rangnekar (supra).
13. I am afraid that this order is passed by a writ Court wherein no finding is given about the binding effect of Kiran Rangnekar, whereas the effect of order passed in Kiran Rangnekar (supra) was considered with clarity by expressing opinion in W.A. No.478/2013. At the cost of repetition, the finding of Division Bench in the writ appeal was "..................in our opinion, the observation in this decision is of no avail to distinguish the decision in Thakur's case". Thus, I am bound by opinion of Division Bench and not inclined to take a different view on the basis of judgment of Kiran Rangnekar or two other judgments cited by Shri Samdarshi Tiwari, learned Addl. Advocate General.
14. In the case of R.K. Lakhera (supra), admittedly the benefit of said pay scale (Rs.3050-4590/-) was directed to be given to the Progress Men and said judgment was not disturbed in writ appeal and in the SLP.
15. Shri Samdarshi Tiwari, learned Addl. Advocate General contended that when SLP is dis- missed in limine without its conversion into an appeal, it cannot be said that the doctrine of merger is applicable.
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT GWALIOR W.P.No.26036/2019 (Jagdish Prasad Patkar Vs. State of M.P. and others) (4)
16. There cannot be any quarrel on this point but fact remains that the present petitioners are holding the same post of Time Keepers and Progress Men i.e. the posts which were held by A.L.Thakur and R.K. Lakhera respectively. The judgment aforesaid have been implemented in favour of similarly situated employees. Any different view taken by this Court will divide a homogeneous class and create a class within the class. In Indrapal Yadav and others Vs. Union of India and others, 1985 (2) SCC 648, the Apex Court held as under:
"5........Therefore, those who could not come to the Court need not be at a comparative disadvantage to those who rushed in here. If they are otherwise similarly situated, they are entitled to similar treatment, if not by any one else at the hands of this Court."
17. In the light of the aforesaid, in my view, the respondents have erred in passing the rejection order dated 30.01.2018 and other orders, which are subject matter of challenge in these batch of petition. The petitioners being similarly situated qua A.L. Thakur & R.K. Lakhera respectively, are entitled to get same benefits.
18. Resultantly, the impugned order dated 30.01.2018 (Annexure-P/11) and other impugned orders in other connected cases are set aside. The respondents shall provide similar benefit of pay scale i.e. Rs.3050-4590/- to the petitioners from the due date with all benefits which were given to A.L. Thakur and R.K.Lakhera (supra). The respondents shall implement this order within 60 days from the date of production of copy of this order."
In the light of aforesaid, the petitioner being similarly situated qua A.L. Thakur and Lekh Singh (supra) is entitled to the same benefit. Hence, the respondents are directed to extend the similar benefit of pay scale to the petitioner from the due date with all benefits which were given to A.L. Thakur and Lekh Singh Yadav and others (supra). The said exercise shall be done within a period of HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT GWALIOR W.P.No.26036/2019 (Jagdish Prasad Patkar Vs. State of M.P. and others) (5) 60 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
Petition stands allowed.
(S.A.Dharmadhikari) Judge (and) ANAND SHRIVASTAVA 2021.02.23 18:18:42 +05'30'