Madhya Pradesh High Court
Jaypal Singh Chawda vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 15 September, 2022
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 15th OF SEPTEMBER, 2022
WRIT PETITION No. 19236 of 2019
BETWEEN:-
1. JAYPAL SINGH CHAWDA S/O SHRI BABU SINGH
CHAWDA, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: GAUGE READER /TIME KEEPER
OFFICE OF DEPUTY DIRECTOR, W.R. DEPTT.
R/O I.S. 248, KISHORE NAGAR , DIST. KHANDWA
(M.P.) (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. VISHNU TOKE S/O SHRI BALIRAM TOKE, AGED
ABOUT 51 YEARS, OCCUPATION: GAUGE
READER/ TIME KEEPER OFFICE OF DEPUTY
DIRECTOR, W.R.DEPARTMENT, DIVISION NO.2
ITARSI ROAD, HOSHANGABAD R/O 79, SECTOR
D, SLICE NO.4, SCHEME NO.78, VIJAY NAGAR,
NEAR VIDYA VIJAY BAL MANDIR SCHOOL
(MADHYA PRADESH)
3. VIJAY SAKALLE S/O SHRI MANAK CHAND
SAKALLE, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: GAUGE READER/ TIME KEEPER
OFFICE OF DEPUTY DIRECTOR,
W.R.DEPARTMENT, DIVISION NO.2 ITARSI
ROAD, HOSHANGABAD R/O RAMESHWAR
ROAD, BEHIND NIWAD JYOTI GAS AGENCY
NEAR MAHILA ARYA SAMAJ (MADHYA
PRADESH)
4. MADHUKAR TADELE S/O SHRI ANANDA
TADELE, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
GAUGE READER/ TIME KEEPER OFFICE OF
DEPUTY DIRECTOR, W.R.DEPARTMENT,
DIVISION NO.2 ITARSI ROAD, HOSHANGABAD
R/O RAM MANDIR GALI, MUKAM AND POST
SAIKHEDI TAHSIL BHIKANGAON (MADHYA
PRADESH)
5. ANUJ UPADHYAY S/O SHRI ARUN UPADHYAY,
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, OCCUPATION: GAUGE
READER/ TIME KEEPER OFFICE OF DEPUTY
DIRECTOR, W.R.DEPARTMENT, DIVISION NO.2
ITARSI ROAD, HOSHANGABAD R/O A/1, SUKTA
COLONY, HARSUD NAKA (MADHYA PRADESH)
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ROSHNI SINGH
Signing time: 9/20/2022
5:27:12 PM
2
6. DEWANAND PAL S/O SHRI MISHRILAL PAL,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, OCCUPATION: GAUGE
READER/ TIME KEEPER OFFICE OF DEPUTY
DIRECTOR, W.R.DEPARTMENT, DIVISION NO.2
ITARSI ROAD, HOSHANGABAD R/O POST
SIHADA, NEAR RAILWAY STATION TAHSIL AND
DISTT KHANDWA (MADHYA PRADESH)
7. DEEPAK CHUREY S/O SHRI RAMESH CHAND
CHOUREY, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: GAUGE READER/ TIME KEEPER
OFFICE OF DEPUTY DIRECTOR,
W.R.DEPARTMENT, DIVISION NO.2 ITARSI
ROAD, HOSHANGABAD R/O OPP. NAGAR
PANCHAYAT MONDI, TAHSIL PUNASA
(MADHYA PRADESH)
8. PARASRAM MUJALDE S/O SHRI ANWAR
MUJALDE, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: GAUGE READER/ TIME KEEPER
OFFICE OF DEPUTY DIRECTOR,
W.R.DEPARTMENT, DIVISION NO.2 ITARSI
ROAD, HOSHANGABAD R/O 77, GRAM
KHADALI, POST PIPRATA, (MADHYA PRADESH)
9. HARISINGH SOLANKI S/O SHRI DAGDUSINGH
SOLANKI, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: SECURITY GUARD, OFFICE OF
DEPUTY DIRECTOR, W.R.DEPARTMENT
DIVISION NO.2 ITARSI ROAD HOSHANGABAD
R/O SUKTA COLONY, HARSUDA NAKA
(MADHYA PRADESH)
10. MUKESH SAHU S/O SHRI KISHORI LAL SAHU,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
SECURITY GUARD OFFICE OF DEPUTY
DIRECTOR, W.R.DEPARTMENT, DIVISION NO.2,
ITARSI ROAD R/O NEW HARSUD, SECTOR NO.3,
H.NO.24C, (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY MS SAROJ DAHARIYA-ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THR.
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY WATER RESOURCES
DEPTT. MANTRALAYA, VALLABH BHAWAN
BHOPAL (M.P.) (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. ENGINEER IN CHIEF WATER RESOURCE
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ROSHNI SINGH
Signing time: 9/20/2022
5:27:12 PM
3
D EPARTM EN T NARMADA BHAWAN, TULSI
NAGAR (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. CHIEF ENGINEER (BODHI) WATER RESOURCE
DEPARTMENT SWARA BHAWAN, LINK ROAD
NO.3, BEHIND KOLAR REST HOUSE (MADHYA
PRADESH)
4. DIRECTOR (HYDROMETEOROLOGY) WATER
RESOURCE DEPARTMENT STATE DATA
CENTRE, KOLAR ROAD (MADHYA PRADESH)
5. DEPUTY DIRECTOR (HYDROMETEOROLOGY)
WATER RESOURCE DEPARTMENT DIVISION
NO.2, ITARSI ROAD, (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI SANJEEV KUMAR SINGH-PANEL LAWYER)
Th is petition coming on for hearubg this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
This order shall also govern disposal of the W.P. No. 19236/2019. The petitioner has filed this petitioner while praying for following relief:-
i. Issue a writ in the nature of Certiorari, Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash/set aside the impugned orders (Annexure P-7) passed by the respondent No. 7.
ii. Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus, Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to command the respondent to extend the benefit of 5th Pay Commission w.e.f. 01.01.1996 & 6th Pay commission w.e.f. 01.01.2006 to the petitioners along with all arrears with 14% interest.
iii. Grant any other relief which this Hon'ble court may deem fit in the fact and circumstances to the petitioner.
T h e facts as put forth in the petition reflect that the petitioners are employees of the Department of Water Resources. While claiming the benefit under the circular dated 07.10.2016, earlier they filed a petition vide W.P. No. Signature Not Verified Signed by: ROSHNI SINGH Signing time: 9/20/2022 5:27:12 PM 4 3920/2018 and Writ Court directed the respondent to consider the case of the petitioner in the light of the order passed in W.P. No. 950/2017 as well as W.P. No. 3633/2017. Thereafter, the respondents filed writ appeal and same was also disposed of vide order dated 23.04.2019 contained in Annexure E-5 and the Division Bench directed the respondents to consider the case of the petitioners in the light of circular dated 07.10.2016 issued by Department of General Administration as well as the direction given by learned Single Judge.
Pursuant to the order passed by Division Bench of this Court, the office of Chief Engineer passed an order dated 19.07.2019 contained in P-7, in which it was observed that since the petitioners herein have been classified as Sthai Karmi in terms of circular dated 07.10.2016, therefore, the benefit has already been extended to the petitioners. Thus, assailing the orders which are contained in P-7 collectively, this petition has been filed.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the authority failed to appreciate the grievance of the petitioners inasmuch as the petitioners grievance is as regards the benefit of 5th and 6th Pay Commission w.e.f. 01.01.1996 and 01.01.2006 respectively. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that this the issue has now been conclusively decided by this Court in the case of Kishorilal Prajapati & Others Vs. State of M.P. & Others in W.P. No. 5332/2010 (s) which has also been upheld by Apex Court and, thereby the employees of NVDA (Narbada Vally Development Authority) have been found entitled for the benefit of 5th and 6th Pay Commission.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the light of Judgement in Kishorilal Prajapati & Others Vs. State of M.P. & Others and other cases, the employee of the Department of Water Resources, who stand on the same footing as of the petitioners, has also filed a petition before this Court vide Signature Not Verified Signed by: ROSHNI SINGH Signing time: 9/20/2022 5:27:12 PM 5 W.P. 5097/2019 (Pandhari Yadav & Otheres Vs. State of M.P. & Otheres). The said writ petition was allowed by this Court, and the order passed by the Single Bench has not been interfered with by Division Bench in W.A. No. 1854/2019. Therefore, submits that since the similarly situated employee have been granted the benefit of 5th and 6th Pay Commission, the petitioners cannot be discriminated thus are entitled for the same relief which have been extended by this Court in the case of Pandhari Yadav & Others Vs. State of M.P. & Others (Supra).
Per contra learned counsel for the respondent submits that the petitioner herein are not entitled for any relief inasmuch as, the petitioners have not been engaged against a post of regular establishment therefore, they do not deserve even regularization in terms of the judgment of Apex Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi, (2006) 4 SCC 1. The counsel further submits that the case of the petitioners have been considered in terms of circular dated 07.10.2016 and they have been classified as Sthaikarmi, therefore, since the petitioners cannot claim the parity on the strength of decision in respect of the employees Narbada Development Authority (NVDA), thus, this petition deserves to be dismissed.
Heard the rival submission of the parties and perused the record. The petitioners have made a categorical averment in paragraph 5.10 of the writ petition as regard the order of this Court in the case of Pandhari Yadav (supra). The said averments have not been controverted/denied by the respondent though there is an attempt by the respondents to demonstrate that the petitioners are not entitled for benefit in the light of the Judgement of this Court in the case of Kishori Lal Prajapati (supra) inasmuch as the petitioners are Signature Not Verified Signed by: ROSHNI SINGH Signing time: 9/20/2022 5:27:12 PM 6 not employee of NVDA. However, the respondents have not dealt with the judgment of this Court in Pandhari Yadav (supra) which in the submissions of the petitioner is judgment in respect of the employee of the Department of Water Resources in which the petitioners are also working.
Thus, a perusal of the order passed in Pandhari Yadav (supra) reflect that this Court while considering the judgment of this Court in Kishorilal Prajapati (supra) and also in W.P. No. 3415/2014 (Sunil Kumar Daya Vs. State of M.P. and Ors.) concluded in operative para as under:-
"Resultantly, the writ petition stands allowed. The order Annexure P- 1 and P-2 are hereby set-aside. The respondents are directed to grant the benefit of pay scale as well as arrears of pay scale to the petitioners, keeping in view the 5th pay Commission as well as 6th Pay commission as the same has been extended to the other identically placed employees serving the NVDA. The exercise of passing the necessary orders and granting the aforesaid benefit be concluded, within a period of ninety days, from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. It is needless to mention that in case the judgment passed by this Court is not been complied within a period of ninety days, from the date of receipt of certified copy of th is order, the petitioner shall be entitled for interest @ 12 % per annum from the date of entitlement till the amount is actually paid to the petitioner.
No order as to costs.
Certified copy as per rules .
Resultantly, no further orders are required to be passed in the present writ petition in view of the order passed in W.P. No. 3415/2014, which shall be applicable mutatis-mutandis in the present case also".
Thus, a perusal of the aforesaid reflects that this Court observed that the petitioners therein were entitled for the benefit which were extended to the Signature Not Verified Signed by: ROSHNI SINGH Signing time: 9/20/2022 5:27:12 PM 7 identically placed employee who were serving with the Narbada Vally Development Authority (NVDA), and therefore, this Court extended the benefit of 5th as well as 6th Pay Commission. Therefore, while relying upon decision on Kishori Lal Prajapati (Supra), this Court held that the directions in Kishorilal Prajapati (Supra) shall apply mutatis mutendis to the petitioner therein as well, who was employee of Department of Water Resources.
Thus, in the considered view of this Court, the petitioner cannot be discriminated inasmuch as the issue in question has been conclusively decided by this Court which has also been affirmed by Division Bench in the case of Pandhari Yadav (supra).
Therefore, this petition stands allowed, and the respondents are directed t o confer the benefit of 5th and 6th Pay commission to the petitioners with effect from due date.
The entire exercise shall be concluded by respondent within a period of 90 days from the date of production of certified copy of this order.
With the aforesaid, the petition stands allowed.
(MANINDER S BHATTI) JUDGE R Signature Not Verified Signed by: ROSHNI SINGH Signing time: 9/20/2022 5:27:12 PM