Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rakesh Markam vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 16 June, 2023
Author: Maninder S. Bhatti
Bench: Maninder S. Bhatti
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANINDER S. BHATTI
ON THE 16 th OF JUNE, 2023
WRIT PETITION No. 20486 of 2016
BETWEEN:-
RAKESH MARKAM S/O SHRI DHANNU LAL MARKAM,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, OCCUPATION: WORKING AS
WORKSHOP INSTRUCTOR GOVERNMENT
POLYTECHNIC COLLEGE MANDLA DISTRICT MANDLA
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI GHANSHYAM SHRMA - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH ITS
SECRETARY JAN SHAKTI NIYOJAN DEPARTMENT
VALLABH BHAWAN BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. DIRECTOR TECHNICAL EDUCATION
D EPARTM EN T VALLABH BHAWAN BHOPAL
(MADHYA PRADESH)
3. PRINCIPAL GOVT. MAHILA POLYTECHNIC
COLLEGE KHARGONE DISTT. KHARGONE
(MADHYA PRADESH)
4. PRINCIPAL GOVT. MAHILA POLYTECHNIC
COLLEGE DISTT. JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
5. PRINCIPAL GOVT. POLYTECHNIC COLLEGE
MANDLA DIST. MANDLA (MADHYA PRADESH)
6. P.K NAGLE, WORKING AS WORKSHOP
INSTRUCTOR GOVT. MAHILA POLYTECHNIC
COLEGE DISTT. JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI AMAN PANDEY - PANEL LAWYER)
This petition coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VAISHALI
TRIPATHI
Signing time: 6/22/2023
11:13:23 AM
2
following:
ORDER
The petitioner has filed this petition while praying for following reliefs:-
i. To quash the impugned order dated 08/07/2015 (Annexure P-6) passed by the Respondent No.2.
ii. To direct the respondents to pay the revised pay scale to the petitioner in view of the order passed by the State Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur as well as directions of the Respondent no.1 and 2.
iii. To pay the pay scale of 4500-100-7000 w.e.f initial appointment order with 12% interest per annum.
iv. To direct the respondents to pay the revised pay scale as given to the Respondent no.6 and 7.
v. To direct the respondents to pay the arrears of amount from his initial appointment with 12% interest per annum.
vi. To grant any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case including cost of the litigation in favour of the petitioner.
2. The counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner herein is working with the Government Polytechnic College Mandla, Distt. Mandla. The petitioner was initially appointed on 05.01.2006 against the post of Workshop Instructor in the scale of Rs. 4000-100-6000. Since the date of appointment, the petitioner is getting the same pay scale.
3. It is contended by the counsel that the factum regarding revision of pay scale in respect of Workshop Instructor was taken by the State Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No.83/1992. Vide order dated 24.03.1998, the pay scale of Workshop Instructor was revised. Similarly situated employees, i.e. respondent no.6 and 7 were extended the benefits vide order dated 15.06.1998 and 28.04.2007 (Annexure P/4). The petitioner who was also Signature Not Verified Signed by: VAISHALI TRIPATHI Signing time: 6/22/2023 11:13:23 AM 3 entitled for similar benefit, moved a representation but the same was not considered. The petitioner filed a Writ Petition before this Court which was registered as W.P. No.5233/2015 (Annexure P/5) and this Court directed the respondents to take decision on the petitioner's representation. The representation of the petitioner has been turned down vide order dated 08.07.2015 contained in Annexure P/6. Thus, assailing the same, this petition has been filed by the petitioner claiming benefits as prayed for in the relief clause.
4. The counsel for the petitioner further contends that the petitioner is being subjected to discrimination inasmuch as the respondent no.7 has been extended the same benefit who is also employed with Govt. Women Polytechnic College Burhanpur with the benefit of pay scale of Rs.4500-100- 7000 w.e.f 20.11.1996 vide order dated 15.06.1998. The counsel contends that the petitioner is also entitled for the same benefit. It is contended by the counsel that the benefit of said pay scale could not have been declined by the respondent under the garb of the recommendation of Brahmswaroop Committee.
5. It is contended by the counsel that the report of the said committee has been brought on the record as Annexure R/4. On perusal of Annexure R/4 reflects that the Committee nowhere denied the benefit of pay scale to Workshop Instructor employed with Government College. Thus, it is contended that the fundamental right of the petitioner is enshrined in Article 14 and 16 of Constitution of India, are being violated as the petitioner has been subjected to discrimination by not extending the benefit which is already been extended to other similarly situated employees. Thus, counsel submitted that the impugned order be quashed and the benefits as prayed for be granted.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: VAISHALI TRIPATHI Signing time: 6/22/2023 11:13:23 AM 46. Per contra, counsel for the State submitted that the representation of the petitioner was considered in the light of the recommendation of Brahmswaroop Committee and as per the report of the Brahmswaroop Committee which is contained in Annexure R/4, there was no recommendation to extend the benefit of revised pay scale to the Workshop Instructor and accordingly, the representation of the petitioner has been declined. The counsel submits that the petitioner is not entitled for the benefit in the light of Annexure P/7 inasmuch as, the petitioner cannot claim any equality as the private respondent was also not entitled for the said benefit.
7. Heard the rival submissions of both the parties and perused the record.
8. The petitioner, who was appointed as workshop Instructor, vide order dated 05.01.2006 (Annexure P/1) conferred with the benefit of Rs.4000- 100-6000. The similarly situated Workshop Instructor namely Shri C.K. Mallik was extended the benefit of Rs.4500-9000 vide order dated 15.06.1998 which has been brought on record as Annexure P/4. The benefit of revise pay scale was extended to Shri C.K. Mallik, in terms of memorandum of the Finance Department, Bhopal in order dated 24.03.1998 as Annexure P/3. Therefore, the case of the petitioner stands on similar footing as of the case of Shri C.K. Mallik who was extended the benefit of the pay scale of Rs.4500-100-9000. On perusal of recommendation of Brahmswaroop Committee which is brought on record as Annexure R/4, the same nowhere deprives the Workshop Instructor who are employed with the Government Polytechnic College as regards the benefit of pay scale of Rs. 4500-100-9000. The claim of the petitioner could not have been declined under the misconception that the Committee has declined the said benefit vide its recommendation which are incorporated in Signature Not Verified Signed by: VAISHALI TRIPATHI Signing time: 6/22/2023 11:13:23 AM 5 Annexure R/4 dated 05.10.2006.
9. Therefore, in this case, the similar benefit has been extended to the similarly situated employees, therefore, the petitioner cannot be deprived of the same benefit as the same would be violation of the principle of equality as enshrined in Article 14 and 16 of Constitution of India.
10. Resultantly, the impugned order dated 08.07.2015 (Annexure P/6) is set aside. The respondents are directed to extend the benefit of Rs.4500-7000 to the petitioner w.e.f 05.01.2006 with all consequential benefits. After fixation, in terms of this order the entire arrears be paid to the petitioner within a period of 90 days from the date of production of certified copy of this order.
11. Accordingly, petition stands allowed.
(MANINDER S. BHATTI) JUDGE VPA Signature Not Verified Signed by: VAISHALI TRIPATHI Signing time: 6/22/2023 11:13:23 AM