Supreme Court - Daily Orders
State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Dilip Singh Patel on 27 August, 2014
Bench: Sudhansu Jyoti Mukhopadhaya, Prafulla Chandra Pant
ITEM NO.2 COURT NO.5 SECTION XV
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s).
2057-2058/2014
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 30/03/2012
in WA No. 163/2012,02/11/2012 in RP No. 148/2012 passed by the
High Court Of M.P. at Gwalior)
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ORS Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
DILIP SINGH PATEL AND ORS Respondent(s)
(Interim relief and office report)
Date : 27/08/2014 These petitions were called on for hearing
today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAFULLA CHANDRA PANT
For Petitioner(s)
Mr. C. D. Singh ,Adv.
For Respondent(s)
Mr. Rakesh Uttamchandra Upadhyay ,Adv.
Mr. Amardeep Sharma, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
Leave granted.
The appeals stand disposed of in terms of signed order.
(Neeta) (Usha Sharma) Sr. P.A. COURT MASTER (Signed order is placed on the file) Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by Neeta Sapra Date: 2014.09.05 16:46:54 IST Reason: IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 8431-8432 OF 2014 (Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 2057-2058 of 2014) STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ORS Appellant(s) VERSUS DILIP SINGH PATEL AND ORS Respondent(s) O R D E R Leave granted.
These appeals have been preferred by appellants-State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. against the judgment and order dated 30 th March, 2012 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Bench at Gwalior in Writ Appeal no. 163 of 2012 and order dated 2nd November, 2012 passed in Review Petition No. 148 of 2012. By the impugned judgment, the Division Bench of the High Court affirmed the order dated 14th February, 2012 passed by learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 5212 of 2009(S) and the review petition against the said order was dismissed.
The factual matrix of the case is as follows:
The respondents-employees were classified as permanent employees as per the statutory provisions of M.P. Standing Standards Orders. However, they were not granted the benefit of Sixth Pay Commission. Learned Single Judge after taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and judgment of the High Court in ‘Engineering-in-Chief, P.H.E.D. and Others vs. Budha Rao Magarde and Others’, 2002(1)M.P.L.J. 385 held that the respondents-employees are eligible to receive revised scale after their classification. This order was affirmed by Division -2- Bench.
Learned counsel appearing for the State submitted that the respondents who were daily wage employees were classified as permanent employees are not entitled for revised scale of pay in terms of Sixth Pay Commission. Per contra, according to learned counsel for the respondents, the respondents were classified as permanent employees as per the statutory provision of the M.P. Standing Standards Orders are entitled for the revised scale of pay. He further submits that respondent nos. 1 and 2 are already receiving regular scale of pay.
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 minimum 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 regularization as per the Rules. It was ordered that the order of the Court for benefit of minimum wages and allowance shall be effected from the issuance of those orders.-3-
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 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.
In view of aforesaid observations, while we are not inclined to interfere with the substantive part of the impugned judgment and order passed by learned Single Judge or the Division Bench or the order passed in Review Application, we modify the order dated 14th February, 2012 passed by learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 5212 of 2009 (S) as to the extent above. The benefits to which the respondents are entitled as per the observation as made above, if not paid be paid within two months. Those who are appointed on the regular pay scale, they will be entitled to corresponding pay scale and other benefits.
The appeals stand disposed of.
…...........................J. ( SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA ) …...........................J. ( PRAFULLA CHANDRA PANT ) NEW DELHI;
AUGUST, 27, 2014