Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 575 (MP)

State of M. P. v. Basantabai

2012-06-20

PRAKASH SHRIVASTAVA, SHANTANU KEMKAR

body2012
ORDER 1. All these writ appeals involve common question of law and are based on similar facts, they are being decided by this common order. 2. For the sake of convenience facts are taken from Writ Appeal No.212/2012. 3. Heard on I.A. No.1933/12, an application seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal. 4. On due consideration, we find that the delay has been satisfactorily explained. Accordingly, the delay in filing the appeal is condoned. 5. With consent heard finally. 6. By filing this intra-Court appeal under section 2(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyayapeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 the appellants have challenged the order dated 1.7.2011 passed by learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No.9887/2010(S). 7. Briefly stated the respondent was appointed on the post of Cook on 7.9.1990. On completion of five years service on contingency basis vide order dated 14.5.1996, he was granted pay-scale of Rs.750-945 along with other employees. 8. The petitioners before the writ Court filed writ petitions claiming regular pay-scale i.e. pay-scale of Rs.750-945 w.e.f. 14.5.1996. They challenged the order by which their claim for regular pay-scale was turned down. According to the writ petitioners after completion of five years of service vide order dated 14.5.1996 they were granted pay-scale Rs.750-945 on the basis of the circular dated 17.3.1978 issued by the State Government. The said order was kept in abeyance on 29.6.1996 and thereafter it was cancelled by the State Government on 8.10.2004. It is worth mentioning that the said order of cancellation was challenged by one Baliram Bhagel by filing a Writ Petition No.1512/2004. The writ petition of the said Baliram Bhagel was allowed vide order dated 11.11.2006 passed by the Division Bench. The SLP filed by the State challenging the order of Division Bench was also dismissed by the Supreme Court. 9. When the matter stood thus, the writ petitioners herein filed writ petition which ws disposed of by quashing the order dated 8.10.2004 issued by the State Government with liberty to take appropriate decision after issuing show cause notice to the petitioners. On the basis of the said liberty show cause notice was issued by the appellants. The writ petitioner (respondent herein) filed reply of the same. The appellants State Government after considering the reply by an order cancelled the order of grant of regular pay-scale issued in favour of the writ petitions. On the basis of the said liberty show cause notice was issued by the appellants. The writ petitioner (respondent herein) filed reply of the same. The appellants State Government after considering the reply by an order cancelled the order of grant of regular pay-scale issued in favour of the writ petitions. Aggrieved the petitioners filed the writ petitions. 10. The learned Single Judge after examining the matter at length and taking into consideration that identically placed employee Baliram Baghel is receiving regular pay-scale held tht the denial of the same pay-scale to the petitioners would be violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. He also took into consideration that the pay-scale was granted by the State Government vide order dated 14.5.1996 to those employees who have completed five years of service in contingency establishment in the light of the circular dated 17.3.1978 allowed the writ petition noticing the fact that the State Government never withdrew the circular dated 17.3.1978 and the circular dated 9.1.1990 imposing ban in respect of appoiintment will not come in the way for grant of regular pay-scale made on the basis of the circular dated 17.3.1978. 11. Having considered the submissions made by the learned Panel Lawyer for the petitioners and learned counsel appearing for the respondents, we are of the view that learned Single Judge has rightly dealt withthe matter and the impugned order needs no interference in this intra-Court appeal. 12. Accordingly, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. No orders as to the cost. ..........