Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 116 (MP)

TEJU LAL YADAV v. STATE OF M P

2009-01-23

RAJENDRA MENON

body2009
Judgment ( 1. ) THE petitioner claims to be working in the government Mahila Polytechnic College, Ghamapur as Hostel Peon. It is claimed that the petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Work Shop Labour in the year 1983 against the vacant and sanctioned post and thereafter, continued to work in the said post. Vide order dated 20th March, 1989 he was regularized in the regular work charged and contingency paid establishment on the post of Hostel peon. Claiming grant of time bound promotion under the scheme formulated by the State Government vide Annexure P/3 dated 17. 03. 1999 and modified vide annexure P/4 dated 27. 02. 2001, the petitioner sought grant of benefit after completing 12 years of service. However, when representations were made and the same were not considered, the petitioner has filed this petition. ( 2. ) ON notice being issued, the respondents have filed a reply and the only objection of the respondents is to the effect that the petitioner is a contingency paid employee, therefore, the scheme contemplated for granting the time bound promotion as contained in Annexures P/3 and P/4 is not applicable. ( 3. ) IT is the case of the respondents that the scheme for time bound promotion is only applicable to employees who are working in the regular establishment and not to employees of the work charged or contingency paid establishment. ( 4. ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner placing reliance on the judgment rendered by the Bench of this Court in Writ Petition (S) No. 1070/2003 (K. L. Asre vs. State)decided on 07. 11. 2005, submits that when the work charged establishment Drivers and the Time Keepers in the Public Works Department are held entitled for promotion under the aforesaid scheme, the petitioner," who is a contingency paid employee, is also entitled to the same benefits. ( 5. ) IN case of K. L. Asre (supra), the benefit of time bound promotion is extended to the employees of Work Charge Establishment in the Public Works Department and it is so held by the learned Judge in paragraph No. 5 of the aforesaid judgment, which reads as under :- "on bare perusal of Annexure P/7 it is gathered that the respondents are giving promotion under the Time Bound Promotion scheme to the Drivers serving under Work-charge Establishment. When the promotion under the Time Bound Promotion Scheme is being given to the Drivers of the Work Charge Establishment, then why the petitioner should not be benefited in the same manner. The Supreme Court in the case of Raghunath Prasad Singh vs. Secretary, Home (Police) Department, Government of Bihar and others, AIR 1988 SC 1033 in para 4 has held as under:-"4. Before we part with the appeal, we would like to take notice of another aspect. In course of hearing of the appeal, to a query made by us, learned counsel for the appellant indicated the reason as to why the appellant was anxious to switch over the general cadre. He relied upon two or three communications which are a part of the record where it has been indicated that there is no promotional opportunity available in the wireless organization. Reasonable promotional opportunities should be available in every wing of public service. That generates efficiency in service and fosters the appropriate attitude to grow for achieving excellence in service. In the absence of promotional prospects, the service is bound to degenerate and stagnation kills the desire to serve properly. We would, therefore, direct the State of Bihar to provide at least two promotional opportunities to the officers of the State Police in the wireless organization within six months from today by appropriate amendments of Rules. In case the State of Bihar fails to comply, with this direction, it should within two months thereafter, give a fresh opportunity to personnel in the Police wireless organization to exercise option to report to the general cadre and that benefit should be extended to everyone in the wireless organization. " The same principle has been reiterated in the case of dr. Ms. O. Z. Hussain vs. Union of India and others, AIR 1990 sc 311 . This Court in the case of Smt. Kamla Devi- Tiwari vs. The State of M. P. and another (W. P. No. 9368/2003) decided on 05. 01. 2005 has held that according to the decision of Raghunath prasad Singh (supra) the employees are entitled for promotion and the respondents were directed to extend the said benefit in terms of the decision of Supreme Court in Raghunath Prasad singh (supra ). 6. 01. 2005 has held that according to the decision of Raghunath prasad Singh (supra) the employees are entitled for promotion and the respondents were directed to extend the said benefit in terms of the decision of Supreme Court in Raghunath Prasad singh (supra ). 6. Since the Time Bound Promotion scheme is applicable to the Drivers serving under the Work Charge Establishment, the view of this Court is that the same is also applicable to the petitioner who was serving on the post of Time Keeper and was retired from the said post. " (Emphasis supplied) ( 6. ) APART from the above, it is seen that the petitioner is working in the polytechnic College and is said to be a contingency paid employee. Under the m. P. Education Department (Technical Branch) Contingency Paid Employees recruitment and Conditions of Service Rules, 1978, a contingency paid employee is defined under Rule 2 (b) to mean a person employed for full time in an office or establishment and who is paid on monthly basis and whose pay is charged to "office Contingencies" but it excludes such of the employees who are employed for certain periods only in the year. In the aforesaid Rules of 1978, the categorization of employees is done under Rule-6 and the employees are classified into two categories i. e. permanent and temporary. Under Sub-rule 2 of Rule-6, it is provided that on completion of 15 years of continuous service the contingency paid employees shall be eligible for attaining the status of permanent work charged or contingency paid employee. The similar provisions are made in the M. P. (Work Charged and contingency Paid Employees) Pension Rules, 1979 wherein the permanent employee is defined under Rule 2 (c) to mean a contingency paid employee or a work charged employee who has completed 15 years of service or more on or after 1st January. 1974. ( 7. ) THE complete reading of these Rules indicates that a contingency paid employee attaining the permanent status and a work charged employee attaining the permanent status are treated to be similar in all respects for the purpose of granting them pension and revision of pay scales under the M. P. Work Charged and Contingency Paid Employees Revision of Pay Rules, 1990 and under the m. P. (Work Charged and Contingency Paid Employees) Pension Rules, 1979. ( 8. ( 8. ) CONSIDERING the fact that under the statutory rules also the contingency paid and the work charged employees are considered to be forming a common class. There is no reason why the benefit of time bound promotion which is extended to the work charged employees and why the judgment rendered in case of K. L. Asre (supra) be not made applicable in the case of the present employee also who has attained the status of a permanent-work charged or contingency paid employees and entitled to various benefits in the matter of revision of pay and pension in identical manner. ( 9. ) A perusal of the Policy as contained in Annexure P/3 further indicates that even though the policy speaks about granting Krammanoti under the scheme to employees in the regular establishment, but by Clause (13) and (14) of the Scheme, the Government has extended the benefit of Krammanoti to vehicle drivers working in the work charged and contingency paid establishment. A perusal of Clauses (13) and (14) clearly indicates that the benefit of Krammanoti after completing 12 years and 24 years of service is made applicable to employees in the work charged and contingency paid establishment. ( 10. ) AS far as work charged and contingency paid employees are concerned, their service conditions are governed by the same rules namely the Work Charged and Contingency Paid Employees Recruitment Rules, applicable to various departments and the Work Charged and Contingency Paid Employees Pension rules 1979 and the Work Charged and Contingency Paid Employees Revision of pay Rules 1990. For the purpose of recruitment, appointment, pay revision and grant of pensionary benefits, the work charged and contingency paid employees constitute a common class and their terms and conditions of employment are governed by identical set of rules. It is, therefore, clear that for the purpose of recruitment, appointment, grant of pension and revision of pay scales, work charged and contingency paid employees are treated similarly and a separate set of rules, different from the one applicable in the regular establishment, govern their terms and conditions of employment. The work charged and contingency paid employees constitute a common class and, therefore, this class of employees are entitled to similar treatment in all respects, deviation being permissible on justifiable grounds and reasons. The work charged and contingency paid employees constitute a common class and, therefore, this class of employees are entitled to similar treatment in all respects, deviation being permissible on justifiable grounds and reasons. In the present case, the benefit of time bound promotion under the scheme - Annexure P/3 and P/4, is extended to vehicle drivers working in the work charged and contingency paid establishment, as per the policy itself. ( 11. ) THE principles laid down in the case of Shri K. L. Asre (supra) has been made applicable to time keepers, working in the work charged and contingency paid establishment. If time keepers and drivers in the work charged establishment are entitled to promotion under the time bound scheme, there is no reason as to why the said benefit be not extended to other employees constituting the same class in the work charged and contingency paid establishment. The policy is made applicable to drivers of this establishment and the reason for not making the said policy applicable to other categories of the work charged and contingency paid establishment is not indicated in the return. No reason is given as to why a different policy is being adopted in the case of other employees in the work charged and contingency paid establishment and the benefit granted to drivers in the said establishment is not extended to other employees like the petitioner. Respondents being a "state" has to give similar benefit to employees similarly situated and forming a common class. They may be justified in granting some additional benefit to some of the employees in comparison to others, but the justification and reasons for such a classification has to meet the test of Article 14 of the Constitution and the decision has to be reasonable, fair and justified by cogent reasons and relevant considerations. Except for contending that the Policy is not applicable to employees working in the work charged and contingency paid establishment, no justification is forthcoming from the respondents with regard to further classification amongst the employees working in the work charged and contingency paid establishment with regard to implementation of the Policy - Annexure P/3 and P/4. Except for contending that the Policy is not applicable to employees working in the work charged and contingency paid establishment, no justification is forthcoming from the respondents with regard to further classification amongst the employees working in the work charged and contingency paid establishment with regard to implementation of the Policy - Annexure P/3 and P/4. When the employees working in the work charged and contingency paid establishment constitute a common class, all benefits which are extended to one set of employees namely drivers as per the policy and the time keepers in the light of the judgment in the case of K. L. Asre (supra), has to be granted by the respondents to the present petitioners also. In the absence of proper justification for adopting a different policy and cogent reason given justifying the reasonableness in the classification and differentiation done fulfilling the requirement of Article 14 of the Constitution, discrimination cannot be permitted. Parity in employment is required to be maintained and, therefore, keeping in view the circumstances and the action of the respondents in adopting a pick and choose method violative of article 14 of the Constitution in the case of employees who form a homogenous class, the action discriminatory in nature cannot be upheld by this Court. ( 12. ) KEEPING in view the aforesaid, the respondents are directed to extend the benefit of promotion in accordance with the aforesaid scheme to the petitioner and after evaluating his case in accordance with the requirements of the said scheme, grant benefit to the petitioner. In case the petitioner is found entitled then necessary orders in this regard be passed within a period of 03 months. ( 13. ) THE petition is, accordingly, allowed and disposed of. Petition allowed.