Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 195 (MP)

Veerpal Singh Chouhan v. State of M. P.

2010-02-16

S.K.GANGELE, S.S.DWIVEDI

body2010
ORDER 1. These two writ appeals, writ appeals No. 154/2009 and 324/2009, have been filed against a common order passed by learned single judge of this Court in writ Petition No. 1320/2007. Writ Appeal No. 154/2009 has been filed by the petitioner, hereinafter referred to as original petitioner who is partially aggrieved by the impugned order to the extent of notional fixation of his pay scale. Another writ appeal, Writ Appeal No. 324/2009 has been tiled by the State challenging the order passed by the learned Single judge. 2. The original petitioner, Veerpal Singh Chouhan respondent in writ Appeal No. 324/2009 and appellant in writ Appeal No. 154/2009, was appointed on the post of constable (Tradesman) on 02/02/1972 in the pay scale of Rs.65-90. This pay scale was revised to the pay-scale of Rs. 515-800 in the year 1981. He was further granted benefit of time bound promotion under the Time Bound Promotion scheme i.e. 02/02/1984 and his pay has been fixed at Rs. 575-800 in accordance with Madhya Pradesh Revision of Pay Rules, 1987 although his pay had to be fixed in the pay scale of Rs. 1150-1800 because the corresponding pay scale of Rs. 575-880 in accordance with the M.P. Revision of pay scales Rules, 1987 is Rs. 1150-1800 however, the pay of the original petitioner was fixed in the pay scale of Rs.950-1530, which was the corresponding pay scale of Rs.515-800. The discrepancy in the pay scale of the original petitioner had been continued after coming into force of another revision of pay rules in the year 1998 and further at the time of granting benefit of time bound promotion to the petitioner, as per the original petitioner, his pay had to be fixed after the Revision of Pay Rules of 1998 in the Pay scale of Rs.3050-5200 and after grant of second time bound promotion benefit in the pay scale of Rs.4000-6000. 3. The respondents in the return stated that as per the explanation clause of Rule 3(b) of the Revision of Pay Rules 1987, even after grant of benefit of time Bound Promotion Scheme, the pay of the original petitioner was fixed in the pay scale of Rs. 950-1530 after coming into force of the Revision of Pay Rules 1987 because the corresponding pay scale of Rs.515-800 is of Rs.950-1530. 4. 950-1530 after coming into force of the Revision of Pay Rules 1987 because the corresponding pay scale of Rs.515-800 is of Rs.950-1530. 4. From the facts of the case, it is clear that the original petitioner was appointed initially in the pay scale of Rs.65-90 on 02/02/1972. He was granted revised pay scale of Rs.515-800 in the year 1981 and thereafter he was granted further benefit of Time Bound Promotion scheme w.e.f. 02/02/1984 and his pay scale was fixed at Rs.575-800. In accordance with the provision of Revision of pay Rules, 1987 the corresponding pay scale of Rs.575-880 is the pay scale of Rs. 1150-1800. In such circumstances, the original petitioner was entitled to be fixed in the pay scale of Rs. 1150-1800 after coming into force of Revision of Pay rules 1987. similarly. After coming into force of Revision of pay rules of 1998 the corresponding pay scale of Rs 1150-1800 is the pay scale on Rs.3500-5200 and the original petitioner was entitled to be fixed in the aforesaid pay scale and thereafter after grant of benefit of Time Bound Promotion the original petitioner was further entitled for fixation of his pay in the pay scale of Rs. 4000-6000. In such circumstances, in our opinion, the learned single judge has not committed any error of law in allowing the writ petition filed by the original petitioner. 5. With regard to grant of arrears of salary, it is an admitted fact that the original petitioner has not claimed any benefit of promotion. He has claimed only proper fixation of his pay and the learned single judge of this court has found that the pay of the original petitioner has wrongly been fixed and the original petitioner has been denied the benefit of correct pay scale inspite of the fact that he had performed the duties of the post. Although, there is some delay in filling the writ petition by the original petitioner, however, the representation of the original petitioner has been dismissed vide order dated 02/09/2006, in our opinion, in such circumstances, the original petitioner is also entitled arrears of salary on the basis of principle of law laid down by Hon'ble the supreme Court in the case of State of Maharashtra v. Reshma Ramesh Meher, (2008) 8 SCC 664 , The Hon'ble supreme court has held as under :- 24. It is true that once the order of termination of service of an employee is set aside, ordinarily the relief of reinstatement is available to him. However, the entitlement of an employee to get reinstated does not necessarily result in payment of full or partial back wages, which is independent of reinstatement. While dealing with the prayer of back wages, factual scenario, equity and good conscience, a number of other factors, like the manner of selection, nature of appointment, the period for which the employee has worked with the employer etc., have to be kept in view. All these factors and circumstances are illustrative and no precise or abstract formula can be laid down as to under what circumstances full or partial back wages should be awarded. It depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. 6. consequently, the Writ Appeal No. 324/2009 filed by the State Government is hereby dismissed The writ Appeal No. 154/2009 filed by the original petitioner is hereby allowed to the effect that he shall also be entitled arrears of salary in consequence of fixation of his pay in the pay scale as ordered by the learned single judge. The order passed by the learned single judge is modified to the extent indicted above. No. order as to cost.