Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 691 (MP)

Abdul Razzaq v. State of M. P.

2011-06-28

K.K.TRIVEDI

body2011
JUDGMENT Keshav Kumar Trivedi, J. 1. The Petitioner who was working as Pump Operator in Gandhi Medical College, Bhopal, approached this Court by this petition under Article of the Constitution of India, seeking a direction against the Respondents to grant the benefit of revised pay scale of Rs. 870-1420 with effect from 1.1.1986 as also the pay scale of Rs. 950-1530 with effect from 1.1.1986 on account of further revision and benefit of pay scale of Rs. 3050-4590 with effect from 1.1.1996 and revision of his pay and payment of entire arrears of salary. It is the case of the Petitioner that the Pump Operators were given the pay scale of Rs. 515-800 which was revised to Rs. 870-1420 with effect from 1.1.1986 as per the Madhya Pradesh Revision of Pay Rules, 1987. 2 It is the case of the Petitioner that the aforesaid pay scale was further revised with effect from 1.1.1986 in the pay scale of Rs. 950-1530 and a further revision had taken place as per the Madhya Pradesh Revision of Pay Rules, 1998 and this pay scale was revised to Rs. 3050-4590. It is further contended that since persons like Petitioner were appointed in isolated posts which were not provided with any channel of promotion, the Scheme of Kramonnati was formulated and it was provided that those who were working in the pay scale of Rs. 3050-4590 for a period of more than 12 years, they be given the pay scale of Rs. 3500-5200. The claim of the Petitioner is further that he made several representations, pointed out the fact that his salary was not properly revised in the pay scale of Rs. 870-1420 when the revision had taken place with effect from 1.1.1986. On the other hand, the Petitioner was given the pay scale of Rs. 825-1220, yet no decision was taken and anomaly created in the revision of pay of the Petitioner was not removed; as a result throughout the service, the Petitioner has suffered the loss. 3. It is also the case of the Petitioner that on account of this illegality, the Petitioner has not only suffered monetary loss during service, but after his retirement, his pension and retiral dues have also not been fixed properly and still the Petitioner is suffering monetary loss. 3. It is also the case of the Petitioner that on account of this illegality, the Petitioner has not only suffered monetary loss during service, but after his retirement, his pension and retiral dues have also not been fixed properly and still the Petitioner is suffering monetary loss. Despite making all efforts by making representations continuously, the injustice caused to the Petitioner is not redressed, therefore, he was required to file the present writ petition. 4. This Court issued the notices on 9.5.2006 and granted various opportunities to the Respondents to file reply. However, no reply whatsoever has been filed by the Respondents though time was allowed by this Court on several occasions. When the case was listed on 10.5.2011, again a prayer was made for grant of time to file reply. As a last indulgence, four weeks' time was granted to the Respondents to file reply and it was made clear that if no reply is filed, no further opportunity shall be granted to the Respondents and the matter shall be heard and decided considering the fact that the Petitioner is a senior citizen. Suffice it to say that the Respondents were not serious about the matter pending before this Court because when the matter was listed on 20.6.2011, again it was stated that the reply is not filed and time is required to file such a reply. Thus, the Court was left: with no option but to hear the matter finally. 5. From the documents available on record, it is clear that the Petitioner was appointed on 21.10.1961 as Pump Operator in Gandhi Medical College, Bhopal, was regularised on 28.7.1984. The first date of appointment of the Petitioner is categorically mentioned in this order which is available on record as Annx.P/1. When the revision of pay was done, it appears that the recommendations were made by the Pay Commission to grant pay scale of Rs. 870-1420 to the Pump Operators with effect from 1.1.1986. However, it is not known as to why the Petitioner was given the pay scale of Rs. 825-1220 when the revision took place with effect from 1.1.1986. When the revision of pay was done, it appears that the recommendations were made by the Pay Commission to grant pay scale of Rs. 870-1420 to the Pump Operators with effect from 1.1.1986. However, it is not known as to why the Petitioner was given the pay scale of Rs. 825-1220 when the revision took place with effect from 1.1.1986. Once the recommendations made by the Pay Commission which is an expert body to prescribe the pay scale for a particular post are accepted by the State Government, it was not open to the State/Respondent to give a lower pay scale or a lesser pay scale to the Petitioner. Thus, the anomaly was created in the matter of grant of pay scale to the Petitioner with effect from 1.1.1986. 6. A further revision of pay was prescribed, as per the orders passed by the State Government. Instead of giving the pay scale of Rs. 950-1530 with effect from 1.1.1986 to the Petitioner, it appears that he was given a lesser pay scale which led him to file a representation on 13.9.1996. Such a representation of the Petitioner was not decided nor any orders were passed. However, the Dean Gandhi Medical College, Bhopal, has sent a memo on 13.8.2002 addressed to the Director of Medical Education, M.P., Bhopal, pointing out the fact relating to claim made by the Petitioner and sought guidance as to whether the Petitioner was to be given the pay scale of Rs. 950-1530 or the pay scale of Rs. 825-1220. In this memo itself, it was said that the Pump Operator working in other Government department like Public Health Engineering were given the pay scale of Rs. 950-1530. It was nowhere said that the post of Pump Operator is sanctioned with a different pay scale in the Medical Education Department or Medical Colleges. This communication of the Respondent No. 3 did not yield any result and again the Petitioner was required to file the representation. He categorically said that the pay scale of Rs. 950-1530 was further revised after implementing the Central Pay Commission Recommendations, in the pay scale of Rs. 3050-4590 with effect from 1.1.1996 and the Madhya Pradesh Revision of Pay Rules, 1998 were made in this respect. Again such a claim made by the Petitioner was not considered and nothing was intimated to the Petitioner. 7. If the pay scale of Rs. 3050-4590 with effect from 1.1.1996 and the Madhya Pradesh Revision of Pay Rules, 1998 were made in this respect. Again such a claim made by the Petitioner was not considered and nothing was intimated to the Petitioner. 7. If the pay scale of Rs. 515-800 was prescribed to the Pump Operator and this pay scale has been revised on account of revision of pay in the pay scale of Rs. 870-1420, why this pay scale was not given to the Petitioner is not clear. If the said pay scale was made applicable for other Pump Operators, similarly situated, the Petitioner could not have been denied this benefit. Thus, when the revision of pay of the Petitioner was done, he was erroneously granted the pay scale of Rs. 825-1220 which otherwise could not have been granted to the Petitioner. As a result, anomaly created by the department continued and the Petitioner suffered the loss in the emolument. On record, the Petitioner has placed a chart issued by the Respondents authorities and from perusal of the same, it is also clear that anomaly was created in the grant of pay scale by the Respondents. However, lastly the Petitioner was granted the benefit of Kramonnati and for the said purposes the order was said to be issued on 18.1.2001. The Kramonnat pay scale of Rs. 3500-5200 was sanctioned to the Petitioner with effect from 19.4.1999 and the pay of the Petitioner was fixed in the minimum of this pay scale. 8. The aforesaid revision was done on what count and how the Kramonnat pay scale was given to the Petitioner when earlier revisions were denied to him, is not clear. The Petitioner has placed on record the order passed by the Respondent No. 1, by which one Shri Raghav Prasad, working as Pump Operator in Medical College, Rewa, was given the revised pay scale and was also extended the benefit of revised pay scale of Rs. 950-1400 with effect from 1.1.1996 and revised pay scale of Rs. 3050-4590 from the date the said pay scale was made applicable. From the perusal of this order, it is also clear that persons like Petitioner were entitled to grant of revised pay scale as indicated hereinabove, but deliberately this benefit was not extended to the Petitioner. 950-1400 with effect from 1.1.1996 and revised pay scale of Rs. 3050-4590 from the date the said pay scale was made applicable. From the perusal of this order, it is also clear that persons like Petitioner were entitled to grant of revised pay scale as indicated hereinabove, but deliberately this benefit was not extended to the Petitioner. Therefore, the Petitioner was put to monetary loss while he was in service and he was not paid the appropriate pension and other retiral dues only because his pay was not rightly fixed. This being so, action on the part of the Respondents cannot be upheld. 9. Normally, this Court cannot look into the matter where the pay scale are to be prescribed to a particular post. However, as has been stated hereinabove, the Respondents have not discharged their own duties diligently when the complaints were made by the Petitioner by making representation. On the other hand, a discriminatory attitude was adopted by the Respondents, inasmuch as, the benefit was extended to some persons like one Raghav Prasad, who was working in the Medical College, Rewa. This being so, no other course is open to this Court except to examine all the facts, the documents available on record and pass specific order. 10. From the narration of facts above, it is held that the Petitioner was entitled to the revised pay scale of Rs. 870-1420 with effect from 1.1.1986 and was further entitled to the pay scale of Rs. 950-1530 with effect from 1.1.1986 when the revision took place and was also entitled to the pay scale of Rs. 3050-4590 with effect from 1.1.1996 in terms of the M.P. Revision of Pay Rules, 1998. Accordingly, the Respondents are commanded by issuance of a writ of mandamus to revise and refix the salary of the Petitioner in the aforesaid pay scale from the date the said pay scale become applicable to the Petitioner and calculate the entire amount of arrears of salary and to make payment of said salary to the Petitioner with interest @ 6% per annum from the date the salary become due, till the date the actual payment is made. The Respondents are further commanded to revise and refix the pension and other retiral dues of the Petitioner and all difference of amount so calculated, be paid to the Petitioner with interest @ 6% per annum from the date the amount become due till the date of actual payment. This exercise be completed within a period of three months. 11. The writ petition accordingly stands allowed, but no order as to costs.