Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ramesh Chandra Raghuvanshi vs M.P. Power Management Company Limited on 18 March, 2024
Author: Sanjay Dwivedi
Bench: Sanjay Dwivedi
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJAY DWIVEDI
ON THE 18th OF MARCH, 2024
WRIT PETITION No.14715 of 2010
BETWEEN:-
RAMESH CHANDRA RAGHUVANSHI, S/O. SHRI
MUKUNDI LAL RAGHUWANSHI, AGED ABOUT 52
YEARS, WORKING AS DRIVER, R/O. 1859, VIJAY
NAGAR, RAMPUR CHAPAR, JABALPUR (M.P.)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI AKASH CHOUDHARY - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. M.P. POWER MANAGEMENT CO. LTD.
THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN, M.P.M.K.V.V.C.L.,
SHAKTI BHAWAN, JABALPUR (M.P.)
2. THE DIRECTOR (VIGILANCE & SECURITY),
M.P.S.E.B., SHAKTI BHAWAN, RAMPUR,
JABALPUR
3. ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR (P) I, M.P. STATE
ELECTRICITY BOARD, RAMPUR, JABALPUR
(M.P.)
.....RESPONDENTS
(RESPONDENTS BY MS. RITIKA CHOUHAN - ADVOCATE)
............................................................................................................................................
Reserved on : 17.01.2024
Pronounced on : 18.03.2024
............................................................................................................................................
This petition having been heard and reserved for orders, coming
on for pronouncement this day, the Court pronounced the following:
ORDER
2 The petition is of the year 2010. Since pleadings are complete and learned counsel for the parties are ready to argue the matter finally, therefore, it is finally heard.
2. By this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is assailing the impugned order dated 16.07.2010 (Annexure-P/9) passed by respondent No.3 whereby the claim of petitioner for grant of second higher pay scale has been rejected by the respondents giving reference of clarificatory circular dated 10.09.1997 of original circular dated 30.12.1971 saying that since the petitioner has rendered services in the work charged establishment on a static cadre i.e. Driver, therefore, that services would not be counted for the purpose of granting second higher pay scale.
3. Counsel for the petitioner submits that rejection order is absolutely improper for the reason that clarificatory circular shall not be applicable upon the petitioner for the reason that petitioner was working on the identified static cadre whereas the circular and policy of the respondents very categorically provide that the benefit of second higher pay scale should be granted to the employees who are working on a static cadre. The claim of the petitioner has been rejected merely on the ground that petitioner did not have any channel of promotion. He submits that counting the services of other employees working in the work charged establishment, they were granted the benefit of second higher pay scale whereas the petitioner's claim was rejected only on the ground that he was working on a post having no channel of promotion, which according to him is improper. He further submits that when respondent/Department has provided the benefit of second higher pay scale to other employees who were working on static cadre, then the petitioner is otherwise entitled to get the said benefit by counting the 3 services rendered by him in the work charged establishment. To give strength to his submission, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon a decision of the Supreme Court in case of Prem Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others reported in 2019(10) SCC 516 as also a decision of this Court passed in W.P. No.24247/2019 (Farooque Hussain Vs. State of M.P. and Others).
4. In rebuttal, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has opposed the submissions advanced by counsel for the petitioner and submitted that the policy available with the respondent/Department does not provide any such benefit of counting the services rendered by the petitioner in the work charged establishment for the purpose of granting second higher pay scale. She has submitted that the circular Annexure R/1 which is a clarificatory circular, very categorically provides that the services rendered in the work charged establishment would be counted only for the employees having channel of promotion but not otherwise and, therefore, the claim of the petitioner has rightly been rejected. In support of her submissions, she has placed reliance upon a decision of the Supreme Court in case of Punjab State Electricity Board and Others Vs. Jagjiwan Ram and Others reported in (2009) 3 SCC 661 wherein the Supreme Court has observed that ad hoc services rendered by the employees cannot be clubbed with their regular services for the purpose of granting revised pay scale; senior/selection grade; proficiency step up or for fixation of seniority. She has further submitted that in light of above enunciation of law, the decision so taken by the respondents does not call for any interference.
5. Having heard the rival contentions of learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of relevant record, the sole question emerges to be adjudicated is as to whether the services rendered by the petitioner in 4 work charged contingency establishment on the post known as identified static cadre can be counted with that of services rendered in regular establishment for the purposes of granting second higher pay scale or not?
6. Indisputably, the petitioner was initially appointed as Security Guard vide order dated 27.07.1977 and later on, affirming him on the said post vide order dated 01.12.1984, he was granted higher pay scale for the said post in the year 1986. In the department, since there was a requirement of Motor Driver, therefore, the petitioner applied for the said post in the year 1991, then considering his case, he was appointed as Motor Driver in the work charged contingency establishment vide order 11.03.1991 (Annexure-P/1) and subsequently, vide order dated 18.09.2008, he was regularized on the said post.
7. However, the respondents vide orders dated 31.03.1983 and 04.03.1987 had taken a decision that the employees who are working under the static cadre post, would be entitled for higher pay scale after completing 9/18/25 years of service. The order dated 31.03.1983 reflects that the Motor Drivers working on work charged establishment would be entitled for regular appointment on a particular pay scale after completing the two years continuous and satisfactory service. Again on 04.03.1987, an order has been issued taking a decision that an employee belonging to identified static cadre would be eligible for first higher pay scale after completing the period of 9 years of satisfactory and continuous service and further next higher scale after another 9 years of service in intermediate scale or 18 years of service in the recruitment and intermediate scale put together, subject to other conditions mentioned in order dated 31.03.1983. The order dated 04.03.1987 was made effective from 01.01.1985.
58. As per the orders issued by the respondents from time to time, it is clear that the service rendered by an employee in work charged establishment would be counted for the purpose of granting pension but claim of the petitioner for grant of second higher pay scale and counting his services which he rendered in work charged contingency establishment have been turned down by the respondents saying that the services rendered by him in regular establishment would only be counted for granting him the benefit of second higher pay scale, but the services rendered by him in work charged contingency establishment shall not be counted for the said purpose. However, the respondents have relied upon the order dated 31.03.1983 which provides that granting opportunity to the employees of the Board working in the cadre where no higher posts are available, a decision for granting the benefit of second higher scale of pay was taken in respect of Class-III and Class-IV employees who are working in static cadres and rendered continuous service of 10 years in the respective posts on regular establishment in which they were recruited, however, as per learned counsel for the petitioner, the services of the petitioner on the post of Driver though rendered in work charged establishment, but even that can be counted for the purposes of granting second time higher pay scale.
10. Though the respondents are denying the claim of the petitioner saying that he is not entitled to get the benefit of second time higher pay scale because his appointment in the regular establishment was made only in the year 2008, but in light of the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of K.L. Asre Vs. State of M.P. & Others passed in W.P. No.1070 of 2003 decided on 07.11.2005 and also in case of Teju Lal Yadav Vs. State of M.P. & Others (W.P. No.11507 of 6 2007) decided on 23.01.2009, the employees who rendered their services in work charged contingency establishment were also held entitled to get the benefit of Kramonnati Vetanman. Further, in case of Gopi Pillai Vs. M.P.S.E.B., Jabalpur & Another reported in 2002 (2) MPLJ 278, services rendered in work charged contingency establishment was directed to be counted for the purpose of granting pensionary benefit as those services would come within the definition of qualifying service for granting the said benefit.
11. Considering the aforesaid enunciation of law, I am of the considered opinion that the stand taken by the respondent/Department depriving the petitioner to get the benefit of services rendered by him in the work charged establishment for grant of second higher pay scale is not proper. So far as the other static cadre posts are concerned, the benefit of 'Kramonnati Vetanman' to the persons who have rendered their services in work charged establishment is not available to them as in absence of their promotion, they are not found entitled to get the benefit of higher pay scale, but this benefit cannot be denied to the Drivers who are otherwise working on identified static cadre not having any channel of promotion because as per the legal pronouncement, even the work charged contingency Drivers can get the benefit of upgradation of pay due to non-availability of promotional avenues. The cases on which petitioner has placed reliance i.e. Prem Singh (supra) and Farooque Hussain (supra), the point as is involved in the present case was considered by the Court and held that the services rendered by an employee in work charged and contingency establishment shall be counted for the purpose of upgradation of his/her pay. The stand taken by the respondents is, therefore, unsustainable and contrary to the settled legal position. The case on which respondents have placed reliance is 7 not applicable in the facts of the present case for the reason that in the present case, legal position so far as Drivers working in work charged establishment is concerned, is already settled and they have been held entitled to get the benefit of upgradation of pay. The basic object for granting the said benefit is nothing but to provide financial upgradation due to non-availability of promotional avenues and as such, the present petitioner, who is holding the post of Driver is entitled to get the said benefit.
12. In the result, the petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 16.07.2010 (Annexure P/9) is, therefore, set aside directing the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner afresh taking note of the fact that the services which he has rendered in the work charged contingency establishment shall be counted for the purposes of granting time scale of pay to him.
(SANJAY DWIVEDI) JUDGE rao Digitally signed by SATYA SAI RAO Date: 2024.03.20 14:27:28 +05'30'