Madhya Pradesh High Court
Nathu Singh Baghel vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 25 March, 2021
Author: Vishal Mishra
Bench: Vishal Mishra
1
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
W.P.No.6723/2021
(Nathu Singh Baghel Vs. State of M.P. and others)
Gwalior, Dated:-25/3/2021
Shri B.P. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri R.P. Singh, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.
The present petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution prays for the following reliefs:-
"(i) That a direction may kindly be given to the respondents to pay the salary as per graded pay scale of the post of Permanent Gangman to the petitioner from the date of his classification as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ram Naresh Rawat.
(ii) Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper, may also be given to the petitioner."
Petitioner who happens to be a Gangman submits that despite having been classified as a permanent employee vide Annexure P/2 under the M.P. Industrial Employment (Standing Order) Act 1961, no benefit of regular pay scale has been extended to him. He submits that the classification order of the petitioner is still intact and has not been cancelled by the authorities. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner will not claim the benefits of classified employee after the implementation of the policy dated 7.10.2016 by the State Government and therefore, petitioner claims the benefit of 2 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH W.P.No.6723/2021 (Nathu Singh Baghel Vs. State of M.P. and others) classification prior to the implementation of the policy dated 7.10.2016 and he submits an undertaking to the aforesaid effect.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the controversy is settled in the case of Ram Naresh Rawat Vs. Ashwini Ray reported in 2017 (Vol 3) SCC 436, relevant extract of which is reproduced below for convenience and ready reference:
"4........ The precise submission is that once they are conferred the status of permanent employee by the court and it is also categorically held that they are entitled to regular pay attached to the said post, not only the pay should be fixed in the regular payscale, the petitioners would also be entitled to the increments and other emoluments attached to the said post.
18. In so far 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?
26. 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 payscale with no increments. It is only the regularization in service which would entail grant of increments etc. in the payscale.
27. 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 3 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH W.P.No.6723/2021 (Nathu Singh Baghel Vs. State of M.P. and others) 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. T.K. Suryanarayan & Ors.9 ).
28. These contempt petitions are, accordingly, dismissed."
Learned counsel for the respondent/State is having no objection to the innocuous prayer made by the counsel for the petitioner.
In view of the above and considering the statement made by the counsel for the petitioner, it is directed that the petitioner will submit separate representation within a period seven working days to the respondents No. 3 and 4 and in turn, the respondents No. 3 and 4 are directed to dwell upon the same and decide the same by passing a speaking order within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. In case it is found that the order of classification of the petitioner is not cancelled at any point of time, then the petitioner be paid the minimum of the pay scale admissible to the post on which he has been classified as a permanent employee without any increment. Arrears if any be worked out, as a necessary consequence and be paid to the petitioners within a further period of two months.
It is made clear that in case during examination of the case of petitioner it is found that the benefit of policy introduced by the State 4 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH W.P.No.6723/2021 (Nathu Singh Baghel Vs. State of M.P. and others) Government dated 7.10.2016 has been extended to the petitioner then the benefits in pursuance to classification order shall be extended only prior to the date on which the benefit of policy has been extended to the petitioner.
With the aforesaid observations, petition stands disposed of with no order as to the cost.
E-copy/Certified copy as per rules/directions.
(Vishal Mishra) Judge Pawar* ASHISH PAWAR 2021.03.26 11:31:10 +05'30'