Madhya Pradesh High Court
Santosh Kumar Berman vs Shri Ashok Shah on 3 July, 2017
--- 1 ---
CONT. C. No. 464/2015, 582/2015, 653/2015, 693/2015,
697/2015, 736/2015, 740/2015, 743/2015, 760/2015,
835/2015, 836/2015, 837/2015, 841/2015, 245/2016,
316/2016, 405/2016, 502/2016, 503/2016, 504/2016,
513/2016, 554/2016, 673/2016, 681/2016, 716/2016,
717/2016, 718/2016, 720/2016, 721/2016, 722/2016,
66/2017, 83/2017, 84/2017, 88/2017, 91/2017 and
92/2017
03/07/2017
Mr. Rahul Sethi and Mr. Shashank Patwari, learned counsel
for the petitioner(s).
Ms. Mini Ravindran, learned counsel for the respondent -
State.
Heard.
Regard being had to the similitude in the controversy
involved in the present cases, the contempt petitions were
analogously heard and by a common order, they are being
disposed of by this Court. Facts of Contempt Petition No.
464/2015 are narrated hereunder.
The petitioner before this Court has filed this present
contempt petition alleging non compliance of the order dated
31/10/2014 passed in Writ Petition No. 6116/2014 (Nanubhau
Patil Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh).
The present case is having a chequered history. The
petitioner before this Court, a daily wager, has filed Writ Petition
ie., W.P.No. 9608/2012 claiming regularisation as well as regular
--- 2 ---
pay scale on the basis of some earlier judgments delivered by this
Court, to be more specific Writ Petition No. 3593/2012 (Ravindra
Choudhary Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and others). Reliance
was also placed upon the judgment delivered by the apex Court in
the case of State of Karnataka Vs. M. L. Kesari reported in 2010
(9) SCC 247 and in the case of State of Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi
reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1.
The learned Single Judge on 24/6/2013 has directed the
authorities to decide the petitioner's representation keeping in
view the order passed in the case of Ravindra Choudhary (supra)
and also taking into account the judgment delivered by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M. L. Kesari (supra). The
case of the petitioner was scrutinised by the respondents and a
Committee was constituted and as many as 70 employees were
given regular pay scale. In the case of the petitioner, by order
dated 10/7/2014 he was also granted regular pay scale. The order
has been filed by the respondent as Annexure R/3 and the same
reflects that the petitioner is a Daily Wager and he has been
granted regular pay scale. After an order was passed granting
regular pay scale on 10/7/2014 to the petitioner who was never
regularised by the respondent by passing any order, came up
before this court for grant of regular pay scale on completion of 5
years of service. The second Writ Petition was registered as
W.P.No. 6116/2014 and this Court by order dated 31/10/2014 has
directed the respondents to decide the case of the petitioner
keeping in view the judgment delivered in the case of Kailash
Chandra Talware (ie., W.A.No. 359/2010 - Kailash Chandra
Talware Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh). It is true that the Division
--- 3 ---
Bench of this Court in the case of Kailash Chandra (supra) has
held that Kailash Chandra will be entitled for regular pay scale on
completion of 5 years of service. Said Kailash Chandra has been
granted benefit of regular pay scale on completion of 5 years of
service. The judgment delivered in the case of Kailash Chandra is
under review.
The respondents have now decided the case of the petitioner by
passing a speaking order and they have stated that the petitioner being
daily wager who has not been regularised, is not entitled for regular
pay scale after completion of 5 years service.
This Court has carefully gone through the order passed by
the respondents. It is true that in large number of cases, regular
pay scale has been granted by the respondents. It is also true that
the respondents in the case of Kailash Chandra who was also a
daily wager, have granted regular pay scale on completion of 5
years of service.
The judgment delivered by this Court in such cases are
arising out of only two Districts ie., Khargone and Barwani out of
51 Districts in the State of Madhya Pradesh. In the State of
Madhya Pradesh people are languishing as daily wages for 20 -
30 years and they are still getting wages fixed by the Collector on
daily wages basis. They have not been granted permanent status in
other Districts and only in two Districts, on account of the
judgment delivered in one particular case that the employees are
receiving regular pay scale. The petitioner was also granted
regular pay scale, but the petitioner wanted regular pay scale after
completion of 5 years of service.
It is really strange that in two Districts employees want
--- 4 ---
regular pay scale after completion of 5 years of service and in
other Districts the circular dated 16/5/07, 8/2/08 and 6/9/08 issued
by the State Government pursuant to the judgment delivered by
the Hon'ble apex Court in the case of Uma Devi (supra), are
applicable, meaning thereby, their cases have been scrutinised for
regularisation after completion of minimum 10 years of service
that too subject to various terms and conditions and they are being
granted a sum of Rs.500/- and Rs.1000/- respectively (now
enhanced to Rs.1000/- and Rs.2000/- respectively) on completion
of 10 years and 20 years of service.
The apex Court in a recent case ie., Ram Naresh Rawat Vs.
Shri Ashwini Ray and Ors., Contempt Petition (Civil) No.
771/2015 while dealing with the issue of employees who have
been conferred permanent status has arrived at a conclusion that
the employees who have been designated as permanent employees
will be entitled for minimum of the pay scale only. The cases of
the employees before the Hon'ble Supreme Court were on better
footings. They were designated as permanent employees and they
were claiming regular pay scale. In the case of the petitioner at no
point of time they have been designated as permanent employees.
The fact remains that they are daily wagers. The apex Court in the
case of Ram Naresh Rawat (supra) in paragraphs 10 to 24 has
held as under :
Before we consider the respective submissions, we want
to make two observations which are crucial to the issue
involved. These are:
(i) The matter is being examined in the contempt
jurisdiction of this Court. From the chronology of events
given, it would be clear that initially these petitioners had
claimed their classification as 'permanent' to the respective
posts. They succeeded in this attempt and the orders
--- 5 ---
passed therein in their favour was that they would be
classified as 'permanent' and that they would also be
entitled to pay-scale of permanent posts from the dates
specified in the award given by the labour court.
In the second round of litigation, out of which present
contempt petitions arise, direction of the High Court is to
grant them pay- scales attached to the posts to which they
are working.
This order has been upheld by this Court as well inasmuch
as Special Leave Petitions filed by the State Government
have been dismissed by common orders dated 21st
January, 2015. However, there is no specific direction for
grant of increments.
(ii) In order to implement the directions of High Court,
against which special Leave Petitions have been
dismissed, the State Government has passed order dated
11th March, 2016 vide which the pay-scale of the
petitioners has been fixed in the pay-scale attached to
these posts. This has also been given from the dates to
which these petitioners are held entitled to and on that
basis arrears of pay have also been paid. However, the pay
is fixed at the minimum of the said pay-scales and there is
also stipulation in the said orders dated 11th March, 2016
that these employees would not be entitled to increment of
salary.
It is clear from the above that the petitioners have been
given pay in the regular pay-scale. Petitioners, however,
have joined issue by contending that orders dated 11th
March, 2016 do not carry out the complete compliance of
the directions given by the High court that on fixation of
pay in the regular pay-scale the petitioners are also
entitled to increments of salary, as is given to the regular
employees, on annual basis.
Therefore, the question that arise for consideration is as to
whether the petitioners are also entitled to the increments.
It is not in dispute that the petitioners were initially
engaged on daily wage basis. Their engagement was also
done without following any selection procedure. It also
does not emerge from record that the initial engagement of
these petitioners was against regular vacancies. Normally,
in such a situation even if these persons, because of their
long service and also on the assumption that they are
discharging the same duties as discharged by regular
employees, such employees can claim the salary which is
being paid to regular employees holding similar posts on
the principles of 'equal pay for equal work'. This aspect
--- 6 ---
has exhaustively and authoritatively being dealt with by
this Court in a recent judgment dated 26th October, 2016
in Civil Appeal No. 213 of 2013, titled State of Punjab
and Ors. vs. Jagjit Singh and Ors.[3] and other connected
appeals, though, there is one distinguished factor, viz. the
petitioners herein have been conferred the status of
'permanent' employees. However, an important question
which arises is as to whether such 'permanent' employees
are same as employees appointed on 'regular' basis or their
services stand regularized. This aspect shall be touched
upon and dealt with a little later. At this stage, reference is
made to the aforesaid judgment in the case of Jagjit
Singh3 for the purpose that even if principle of 'equal pay
for equal work' is applicable and the pay in the regular
pay-scale is admissible to such employees, these
employees would be entitled to minimum of the regular
pay- scale and not the increments. This case is taken note
of and discussed in Jagjit Singh3 in the following manner:
"36. Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi [(2006) 4
SCC 1], decided by a five-Judge Constitution Bench:
Needless to mention, that the main proposition canvassed
in the instant judgment, pertained to regularization of
government servants, based on the employees having
rendered long years of service, as temporary, contractual,
casual, daily-wage or on ad-hoc basis. It is, however
relevant to mention, that the Constitution Bench did
examine the question of wages, which such employees
were entitled to draw. In paragraph 8 of the judgment, a
reference was made to civil appeal nos. 3595-612 of 1999,
wherein, the respondent-employees were temporarily
engaged on daily-wages in the Commercial Taxes
Department. As they had rendered service for more than
10 years, they claimed permanent employment in the
department. They also claimed benefits as were extended
to regular employees of their cadre, including wages
(equal to their salary and allowances) with effect from the
dates from which they were appointed. Even though the
administrative tribunal had rejected their claim, by
returning a finding, that they had not made out a case for
payment of wages, equal to those engaged on regular
basis, the High Court held that they were entitled to
wages, equal to the salary of regular employees of their
cadre, with effect from the date from which they were
appointed. The direction issued by the High Court resulted
in payment of higher wages retrospectively, for a period of
10 and more years. It would also be relevant to mention,
that in passing the above direction, the High Court had
relied on the decision rendered by a three-Judge bench of
--- 7 ---
this Court in Dharwad District PWD Literate Daily- Wage
Employees Association v. State of Karnataka[(1990) 2
SCC 396]. The Constitution Bench, having noticed the
contentions of the rival parties, on the subject of wages
payable to daily-wagers, recorded its conclusions as
under:-
"55. In cases relating to service in the commercial taxes
department, the High Court has directed that those
engaged on daily wages, be paid wages equal to the salary
and allowances that are being paid to the regular
employees of their cadre in government service, with
effect from the dates from which they were respectively
appointed. The objection taken was to the direction for
payment from the dates of engagement. We find that the
High Court had clearly gone wrong in directing that these
employees be paid salary equal to the salary and
allowances that are being paid to the regular employees of
their cadre in government service, with effect from the
dates from which they were respectively engaged or
appointed. It was not open to the High Court to impose
such an obligation on the State when the very question
before the High Court in the case was whether these
employees were entitled to have equal pay for equal work
so called and were entitled to any other benefit. They had
also been engaged in the teeth of directions not to do so.
We are, therefore, of the view that, at best, the Division
Bench of the High Court should have directed that wages
equal to the salary that is being paid to regular employees
be paid to these daily- wage employees with effect from
the date of its judgment. Hence, that part of the direction
of the Division Bench is modified and it is directed that
these daily-wage earners be paid wages equal to the salary
at the lowest grade of employees of their cadre in the
Commercial Taxes Department in government service,
from the date of the judgment of the Division Bench of the
High Court. Since, they are only daily-wage earners, there
would be no question of other allowances being paid to
them. In view of our conclusion, that Courts are not
expected to issue directions for making such persons
permanent in service, we set aside that part of the
direction of the High Court directing the Government to
consider their cases for regularization. We also notice that
the High Court has not adverted to the aspect as to
whether it was regularization or it was giving permanency
that was being directed by the High Court. In such a
situation, the direction in that regard will stand deleted and
the appeals filed by the State would stand allowed to that
extent. If sanctioned posts are vacant (they are said to be
--- 8 ---
vacant) the State will take immediate steps for filling
those posts by a regular process of selection. But when
regular recruitment is undertaken, the respondents in C.A.
Nos. 3595-3612 and those in the Commercial Taxes
Department similarly situated, will be allowed to compete,
waiving the age restriction imposed for the recruitment
and giving some weightage for their having been engaged
for work in the Department for a significant period of
time. That would be the extent of the exercise of power by
this Court under Article 142 of the Constitution to do
justice to them." We have extracted the aforesaid
paragraph, so as not to make any inference on our own,
but to project the determination rendered by the
Constitution Bench, as was expressed by the Bench. We
have no hesitation in concluding, that the Constitution
Bench consciously distinguished the issue of pay parity,
from the issue of absorption/regularization in service. It
was held, that on the issue of pay parity, the High Court
ought to have directed, that the daily-wage workers be
paid wages equal to the salary at the lowest grade of their
cadre. The Constitution Bench expressed the view, that the
concept of equality would not be applicable to the issue of
absorption/regularization in service. And conversely, on
the subject of pay parity, it was unambiguously held, that
daily-wage earners should be paid wages equal to the
salary at the lowest grade (without any allowances). "
Another significant reason for referring to the judgment of
Jagjit Singh3 is that the Court culled out the principles of
'equal pay for equal work' from the earlier judgments on
the subject and collated them at one place. Further, the
Court also drew an important distinction between the grant
of benefit of 'equal pay for equal work' to temporary
employees on the one hand and the status of regular
employees on the other hand. Insofar as parameters of
principles of 'equal pay for equal work' deduced by the
Court are concerned (para 42), our purpose of deduction
stated in sub-para vi thereof is important, which is
reproduced below:
"(vi) For placement in a regular pay-scale, the claimant
has to be a regular appointee. The claimant should have
been selected, on the basis of a regular process of
recruitment. An employee appointed on a temporary basis,
cannot claim to be placed in the regular pay-scale (see -
Orissa University of Agriculture & Technology Vs. Manoj
K. Mohanty[4]). " Insofar as distinction between pay
parity and regularisation of service is concerned, referring
to the Constitution Bench judgment in Uma Devi2, the
Court made the following observations:
--- 9 ---
"We are of the considered view, that in paragraph 44
extracted above, the Constitution Bench clearly
distinguished the issues of pay parity, and regularization
in service. It was held, that on the issue of pay parity, the
concept of 'equality' would be applicable (as had indeed
been applied by the Court, in various decisions), but the
principle of 'equality' could not be invoked for absorbing
temporary employees in Government service, or for
making temporary employees regular/permanent. All the
observations made in the above extracted paragraphs,
relate to the subject of regularization/permanence, and not,
to the principle of 'equal pay for equal work'. As we have
already noticed above, the Constitution Bench
unambiguously held, that on the issue of pay parity, the
High Court ought to have directed, that the daily-wage
workers be paid wages equal to the salary, at the lowest
grade of their cadre. This deficiency was made good, by
making such a direction. " Thus, it follows that even if
principle of 'equal pay for equal work' is applicable,
temporary employee shall be entitled to minimum of the
pay-scale which is attached to the post, but without any
increments.
Insofar as petitioners before us are concerned they have
been classified as 'permanent'. For this reason, we advert
to the core issue, which would determine the fate of these
cases, viz., whether these employees can be treated as
'regular' employees in view of the aforesaid classification?
In other words, with their classification as 'permanent', do
they stand regularized in service?
For this purpose, we would first like to refer to the
provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Industrial Employment
(Standing Orders) Act, 1961 and the Rules made
thereunder known as the Madhya Pradesh Industrial
Employment (Standing Orders) Rules, 1963. Section 3(c)
of the Act defines "Standing Orders" and as per Section 6,
the State Government may, by notification, apply
Standard Standing Orders to such class of undertakings
and from such date as may be specified therein. Section 21
empowers the State Government to make rules to carry
out the purposes of the said Act which are required to be
notified. It empowers the State Government to frame
Standard Standing Orders as well. It is in exercise of
powers under Section 21(1) of the Act that the State
Government has framed Madhya Pradesh Industrial
Employment (Standing Orders) Rules, 1963 (hereinafter
referred to as the 'Rules'). Annexure to these Rules
contains standard Standing Orders for all undertakings in
--- 10 ---
the State. Standing Order No. 2 of this Order enumerates
classification of employees which has already been
reproduced above. As per this classification, an employee
would be known as 'permanent employee' who has
completed six months' satisfactory service in a clear
vacancy in one or more posts whether on probation or
otherwise or a person whose name has been entered in the
muster roll and who is given a ticket of 'permanent
employee'. It follows from the above that merely by
putting in six months' satisfactory service, an employee
can be treated as 'permanent employee'. Rights which
would flow to different categories of employees including
'permanent employee' are not stipulated in these Rules or
even in the parent Act. It can be gathered from Rule 11 of
the said Rules, which relates to termination of
employment, that in case of a 'permanent employee' one
month's notice or wages for one month in lieu of notice is
required when the employment of a 'permanent employee'
is to be terminated. On the other hand, no such notice or
wages in lieu thereof is needed to be given to any other
category of employees. Additional obligation casts on the
employer is to record reasons for termination of service in
writing and communicate the same to the employee.
With this, we advert to the question posed above. In the
first blush, this question appears to be somewhat puzzling,
as to how such a question can arise because normally an
employee who is given the designation of 'permanent
employee' should be treated as 'regular employee' as well.
However, this puzzle vanishes when we examine the
standing orders, acts and rules in question under which
designation of 'permanent employee' is acquired.
Fortunately for us, we are not trading on a virgin territory.
This Court has already examine the issue in the context of
these very standing orders of Madhya Pradesh. In the case
of Mahendra L. Jain & Ors. v. Indore Development
Authority & Ors.[5], this Court analyzed the Standard
Standing Order in question and held that permanent
classification does not amount to regularization, inasmuch
as it was noted that the matter relating to the recruitment is
governed by a separate statute, as can be seen from the
following discussion therein:
"28. The 1961 Act provides for classification of
employees in five categories. The 1973 Act, as noticed
hereinbefore, clearly mandates that all posts should be
sanctioned by the State Government and all appointments
to the said cadre must be made by the State Government
alone. Even the appointments to the local cadre must be
--- 11 ---
made by the Authority. The said provisions were not
complied with. It is accepted that no appointment letter
was issued in favour of the appellants. Had the
appointments of the appellants been made in terms of the
provisions of the Adhiniyam and the Rules framed
thereunder, the respondent Authority was statutorily
enjoined to make an offer of appointment in writing which
was to be accepted by the appellants herein. Who made
the appointments of the appellants to the project or other
works carried on by the Authority is not known. Whether
the person making an appointment had the requisite
jurisdiction or not is also not clear. We have noticed
hereinbefore that in the case of Om Prakash Mondloi, the
CEO made an endorsement to the effect that he may be
tried in daily wages and should be entrusted with the work
of progress collection of ODA work. The said order is not
an "offer of appointment" by any sense of the term.
xxx xxx xxx
31. The Standing Orders governing the terms and
conditions of service must be read subject to the
constitutional limitations wherever applicable.
Constitution being the suprema lex, shall prevail over all
other statutes. The only provision as regards recruitment
of the employees is contained in Order 4 which merely
provides that the manager shall within a period of six
months, lay down the procedure for recruitment of
employees and notify it on the notice board on which
Standing Orders are exhibited and shall send copy thereof
to the Labour Commissioner. The matter relating to
recruitment is governed by the 1973 Act and the 1987
Rules. In the absence of any specific directions contained
in the Schedule appended to the Standing Orders, the
statute and the statutory rules applicable to the employees
of the respondent shall prevail." The issue came up again
in the case of M.P. State Agro Industries Development
Corporation Ltd. & Anr. v. S.C. Pandey[6] wherein this
Court held that only because a temporary employee has
completed 240 days of work, he would not be entitled to
be regularized in service. The Court also reiterated that the
Standing Orders categorize the nature of employment and
do not classify individual employees in different post
according to the hierarchy created in the Department and
thus proviso to Rule 2 does not apply to promotions or
regularization in higher grade. We would like to reproduce
following paras from the said judgment:
"17. The question raised in this appeal is now covered by
a decision of this Court in M.P. Housing Board v. Manoj
--- 12 ---
Shrivastava [(2006) 2 SCC 702] wherein this Court clearly
opined that: (1) when the conditions of service are
governed by two statutes; one relating to selection and
appointment and the other relating to the terms and
conditions of service, an endeavour should be made to
give effect to both of the statutes; (2) a daily-wager does
not hold a post as he is not appointed in terms of the
provisions of the Act and the Rules framed thereunder and
in that view of the matter he does not derive any legal
right; (3) only because an employee had been working for
more than 240 days that by itself would not confer any
legal right upon him to be regularised in service; (4) if an
appointment has been made contrary to the provisions of
the statute the same would be void and the effect thereof
would be that no legal right was derived by the employee
by reason thereof.
18. The said decision applies on all fours to the facts of
this case. In Mahendra L. Jain [(2005) 1 SCC 639 : 2005
SCC (L&S) 154] this Court has categorically held that the
Standing Orders governing the terms and conditions of
service must be read subject to the constitutional and
statutory limitations for the purpose of appointment both
as a permanent employee or as a temporary employee. An
appointment to the post of a temporary employee can be
made where the work is essentially of temporary nature. In
a case where there existed a vacancy, the same was
required to be filled up by resorting to the procedures
known to law i.e. upon fulfilling the constitutional
requirements as also the provisions contained in the 1976
Regulations. No finding of fact has been arrived at that
before the respondent was appointed, the constitutional
and statutory requirements were complied with.
xx xx xx
22. Such appointments, in our opinion, having regard to
the decisions in Mahendra L. Jain [(2005) 1 SCC 639 :
2005 SCC (L&S) 154] and Manoj Shrivastava [(2006) 2
SCC 702] must be made in accordance with extant rules
and regulations. It is also a well-settled legal position that
only because a temporary employee has completed 240
days of work, he would not be entitled to be regularised in
service. Otherwise also the legal position in this behalf is
clear as would appear from the decision of this Court
inDhampur Sugar Mills Ltd. v. Bhola Singh [(2005) 2
SCC 470 : 2005 SCC (L&S) 292] apart from Mahendra L.
Jain [(2005) 1 SCC 639 : 2005 SCC (L&S) 154]." A direct
judgment on the subject is State of M.P. & Ors. v. Lalit
Kumar Verma[7] wherein it was held that a workman
--- 13 ---
would be entitled to classification as permanent or
temporary employee if the conditions precedent are
satisfied. It was held that the respondent was not
appointed against the clear vacancy, he was not appointed
in a permanent post or placed on probation. This Court,
thus, held that working on daily wages alone would not
entitle him to the status of permanent employee. Para 7 of
this judgment needs to be looked into.
"7. A workman, therefore, would be entitled to
classification of permanent or temporary employee, if the
conditions precedent therefor are satisfied. The respondent
was not appointed against a clear vacancy. He was not
appointed in a permanent post or placed on probation. He
had also not been given a ticket of permanent employee.
Working on daily wages alone would not entitle him to the
status of a permanent employee." It is, thus, somewhat
puzzling as to whether the employee, on getting the
designation of 'permanent employee' can be treated as
'regular' employee. This answer does not flow from the
reading of the Standing Orders Act and Rules. In common
parlance, normally, a person who is known as 'permanent
employee' would be treated as a regular employee but it
does not appear to be exactly that kind of situation in the
instant case when we find that merely after completing six
months' service an employee gets right to be treated as
'permanent employee'. Moreover, this Court has, as would
be noticed now, drawn a distinction between 'permanent
employee' and 'regular employee'.
We may mention, at this stage that this aspect has come up
for consideration, in another context, in State of Madhya
Pradesh and Others vs. Dilip Singh Patel and Others[8].
That was a case where similarly situated employees, who
were classified as 'permanent employees' under the
Standing Orders Act, were given minimum of the pay-
scale attached to their posts. However, after the
implementation of Sixth Pay Commission, benefits thereof
were not extended to these employees. High Court held
that they would be entitled to have their pay fixed as per
the revised scales in accordance with the
recommendations of Sixth Pay Commission which were
accepted qua regular employees. This Court, though,
upheld the orders of the High Court giving them the
benefit of revision of pay-scale pertained to Sixth Pay
Commission, but at the same time made it clear that they
would be entitled to minimum salary and allowances as
per the said revised scales and would not be entitled to any
increments. It was further held that such increments would
--- 14 ---
be admissible only after regularisation of their services
which regularisation was to take place as per the seniority
list with due procedure. Following passage from the said
judgment, which captures the aforesaid directions, is
quoted hereunder:
"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 O.A. No. 648 of 1995,
O.A. No. 293 of 1991 etc. In compliance of the orders
passed in such original applications, the Chief Engineer,
Yamuna Kachhar, Water Resources Department, Gwalior
(M.P.)( by orders issued in between April,. 2004 and June,
2004 provided the mi8nimum 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 due
procedure and the benefit of increment and other benefits
can only be granted after the regularisation as per the
Rules. It was ordered that the order of the Court for
benefit of minimum wages and allowances shall be
.............
From the aforesaid facts, it is clear that the respondents are entitled for minimum wages and allowance 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 the said revised scale without increment. Only after regularisation of their service, as per seniority and rules, they can claim the benefit of increment and other benefits." From the aforesaid, it follows that though a 'permanent employee' has right to receive pay in the graded pay-scale, at the same time, he would be getting only minimum of the said pay-scale with no increments. It is only the regularisation in service which would entail grant of increments etc. in the pay-scale. In view of the aforesaid, we do not find any substance in the contentions raised by the petitioners in these contempt petitions. We are conscious of the fact that in some cases, on earlier occasions, the State Government while fixing the pay scale, granted increments as well. However, if some persons are given the benefit wrongly, that cannot form the basis of claiming the same relief. It is trite that right to equality under Article 14 is not in negative terms (See Indian Council of Agricultural Research & Anr. v.
--- 15 ---
T.K. Suryanarayan & Ors.[9]).
Keeping in view the judgment of the apex Court, this Court is of the opinion that the respondents were justified in passing the impugned order. The petitioner is still a daily wager. There is no order brought on record by either side regularising the petitioner on the post he is working and, therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that no contempt is made out in the matter. However, liberty is granted to the petitioner to challenge the order passed by the respondents dt. 19/6/2017, if so advised. The repercussions of the order passed by this Court will affect large number of employees in the entire State of Madhya Pradesh and, therefore, a uniform policy should be followed in respect of daily wagers working in the State of Madhya Pradesh by the State Government Departments. The Departments shall ensure that the policy framed by the State Government are strictly adhered to.
The present contempt petition and the connected contempt stand dismissed.
(S. C. SHARMA) JUDGE KR