Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 1, Cited by 16]

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Israil Khan vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 14 July, 2015

            1                WP.1881/2014


Writ Petition No.1881/2014
         Israil Khan
           Versus
    State of M.P. & Ors.


Writ Petition No.1313/2010
     Subhash Joshi
         Versus
   State of M.P. & Ors.


Writ Petition No.571/2014
       Ram Dulare
         Versus
   State of M.P. & Ors.


Writ Petition No.4921/2014
 Umesh Kumar Upadhyay
           Versus
    State of M.P. & Ors.

Writ Petition No.1197/2015
  Shashi Kant Poundrik
           Versus
    State of M.P. & Ors.


Writ Petition No.2555/2015
       Maharaj Singh
           Versus
    State of M.P. & Ors.
             2                WP.1881/2014

Writ Petition No.2557/2015
 Bhuvneshwar Samadiya
           Versus
    State of M.P. & Ors.

Writ Petition No.2561/2015
  Netra Bahadur Thapa
           Versus
    State of M.P. & Ors.


Writ Petition No.2563/2015
  Amar Singh Kushwaha
           Versus
    State of M.P. & Ors.

Writ Petition No.2565/2015
      Sanjay Birthare
           Versus
    State of M.P. & Ors.


Writ Petition No.2567/2015
      Braj Mohan Sen
           Versus
    State of M.P. & Ors.


Writ Petition No.2569/2015
 Chandra Mohan Sharma
           Versus
    State of M.P. & Ors.

Writ Petition No.2571/2015
       Heeralal Ojha
                                            3                          WP.1881/2014

                                        Versus
                               State of M.P. & Ors.
  -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri B.P.Singh, Advocate for the petitioners in all the petitions.
Shri Vishal Mishra, Dy.A.G. for the respondents / State.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     ORDER

( 14 / 07 / 2015 ) Since similar and singular point is involved in these matters, on the joint request, matters are analogously heard and decided by this common order.

2. The singular question involved is whether petitioners are entitled for regular pay scale upon their classification on permanent post. The case of the petitioners is that they were classified as permanent employee. Hence, they were entitled for regular pay scale from the date they attained the status of permanent employee on classification. Respondents in their return have contended that on the similar issue SLPs are pending. Thus, the basic defence was pendency of SLP.

3. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the parties fairly admitted that the batch of SLPs is dismissed by the Apex Court.

4. Heard.

4 WP.1881/2014

5. In the opinion of this Court, the question involved in this matter is no more res integra. This Court way back in 1989 JLJ 36 ( State of M.P. Vs. Ram Prakash) opined that on attaining status of permanent employee, the employee is entitled to get regular pay scale attached to the said post. The Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No. 110/2011 opined as under :-

"whether an employee comes by way of normal recruitment process or through the process of classification, the fact remains that both i.e. the normally recruited employee and a classified employee work on the same post and perform the same duties. It cannot be held that the classification has any less effect or force as compared to the normal process of appointment, because the classification is also based upon the law in the form of Standing Orders and as such both employees who have been brought into through either of the two processes permitted by law, as permanent employees against a particular post, should be entitled to the same benefits. Taking a contrary view would mean that the employees inducted through classification process would be saddled with an undesirable disability throughout their service, as compared to other employees which may tantamount to violation of the principle of "equal pay for equal work". Our view finds support from another Division Bench decision of this Court report in the case of State of M.P. Vs. Ram Prakash (1989 JLJ
36).

For the aforementioned reasons, we do not find any good ground to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge. Accordingly, the writ appeals are dismissed."

5 WP.1881/2014

6. The Apex Court dismissed a batch of SLPs. In one such order passed in SLP (Civil) No.(s) 20025/2011 the Apex Court opined as under:-

"In Rest of the Matters Delay condoned.
Dismissed.
We direct the State Government to implement the order(s) passed by the High Court within eight months' time from today.
If for any reason, the petitioner- State does not implement the order(s) passed by the High Court, the respondents are at liberty to approach this Court by way of filing contempt petition(s)."

In view of aforesaid, it can be safely concluded that petitioners are entitled for regular pay scale from the date they are classified as permanent employee.

7. Petitions are accordingly allowed. The respondents are directed to grant regular pay scale with arrears to the petitioners from the date of their classification as permanent employee. This order be complied with within 8 months from the date of production of copy of this order.

8. The Registry is directed to keep a true copy of this order in all the connected matters.

                                                       (Sujoy Paul)
sarathe                                                  Judge