Madhya Pradesh High Court
The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Ram Naresh Prajapati on 21 March, 2017
1
WA No. 197 of 2016
(STATE OF M.P. & OTHERS v. RAM NARESH PRAJAPATI & OTHERS)
21.03.2017
Mr. Pushpendra Yadav, Government Advocate for
the appellants/State.
Ms. Malti Dadariya, Advocate for the respondents.
The present appeal is directed against an order passed by the learned single Bench on 21.01.2016 in W.P.No.9827/2012 (S) whereby the writ petition was allowed and the present appellants were directed to extend the benefit of regular pay scale along with the arrears to the writ petitioners from the date of completion of three years from the date of their appointment.
2. The writ petitioners were initially engaged on daily wages as Part Time Sweeper. Subsequently, after facing a selection committee, they were appointed against Class- IV post at the Collector's rate on 30.06.2004 (Annexure P-2). The writ petitioners claimed that in terms of Circular No.192/601/1/Vi.Aa.Pr./84 dated 10.05.1984 (Annexure P-4) issued by the General Administration Department, having worked at the Collector's rate for a period of three years, they are entitled to regular pay scale. It is the said writ petition, which was allowed by the learned single Bench.
2 WA No. 197 of 2016(STATE OF M.P. & OTHERS v. RAM NARESH PRAJAPATI & OTHERS)
3. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the State, the stand is that the writ petitioners were not appointed against any sanctioned post of Part Time Sweeper nor there is any Rule or provision for their promotion to Class-IV post. It was decided to withdraw the benefit of appointment against Class-IV post vide communication dated 24.05.2012 (Annexure R-1) when the said illegality came to the notice of the State Government. Thus, it is also pointed out that the writ petitioners are not entitled to regular pay scale in terms of circular dated 10.05.1984 (Annexure P-4).
4. The learned single Bench has allowed the writ petition relying upon an order passed in W.P.No.361/2010 (S) (Ram Kumar Dubey and others v. State of M.P. And others) decided on 31.07.2012 wherein, the employees working at Shahdol, have been granted benefit of regular pay scale. In view of the order passed by the Court, the writ petitioners were given the benefit of grant of regular pay scale.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and find no error in the order passed by the learned single Bench. The fact is that the writ petitioners were initially 3 WA No. 197 of 2016 (STATE OF M.P. & OTHERS v. RAM NARESH PRAJAPATI & OTHERS) engaged as Part Time Sweeper on daily wages but having worked for some time, they were subjected to scrutiny by the selection committee and appointed at the Collector's rate. Therefore, once the writ petitioners have been subjected to scrutiny by a departmental committee, then, it cannot be said that the appointment of the petitioners was patently illegal. The petitioners had worked for more than eight years when they approached this Court for grant of regular pay scale in terms of Clause-6 of the circular dated 10.05.1984, which provides that if an employee continues to work at the Collector's rate for a period of three years, he will be considered as a temporary employee and will be entitled to revised pay scale. The writ petitioners satisfy the said condition and therefore, they are entitled to be treated as temporary employees and consequently, the revised pay scale as temporary employees.
6. In view of the said fact, we find that the writ petitioners have been rightly found entitled for the revised pay scale after treating them as temporary employees. Such is the view taken by this Court in W.A.No.226/2016 (State of M.P. and others v. Naresh Kumar Pandey and 4 WA No. 197 of 2016 (STATE OF M.P. & OTHERS v. RAM NARESH PRAJAPATI & OTHERS) another) decided on 09.02.2017 wherein it has been held thus:-
"7. A perusal of the aforesaid provision goes to show that all such employees who are appointed by the Collector and are paid a fixed salary (Nishchit Vetan), they are entitled to the benefit of revision of pay as contained in Annexure thereto. That being the stipulation in the circular, merely because the employees are not appointed in a particular pay scale, the benefit of the circular could not be denied as the circular speaks about its applicability to the employees appointed by the Collector on a fixed salary and if an employee receiving a fixed salary is also entitled to the revised pay scale, we find no error in the order passed by the learned Writ Court warranting consideration."
7. In view of the aforesaid judgment, we do not find any merit in the present appeal. The same is dismissed.
(Hemant Gupta) (S.K. Seth)
Chief Justice Judge
S/