Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 583 (MP)

C. S. Shrivastava v. Animal Husbandry Department

2016-07-19

VANDANA KASREKAR

body2016
ORDER 1. With the consent of both the parties, matter is finally heard. 2. The petitioners have filed this present petition against the inaction of the respondents in not granting the revised pay-scale of Rs.15600-39100+5400 grade pay in the pay scale of Rs.5500-175-9000 at par with the other similarly situated persons. 3. The petitioners were working on the post of Shift Manager in the Office of Veterinary Department and they have been granted pay scale of Rs.5500-175-9000, however the persons who are similarly situated with the petitioners have been granted pay scale of Rs.15600-39100+5400 grade pay. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that petitioners have submitted a representation but no reply has been given by the respondents. It is further submitted that respondents cannot be discriminated with the petitioners on the ground of diploma or degree at the time of grant of pay scale. It is submitted that petitioners claiming the same benefit have filed the present petition. Respondents have filed their reply and in the reply, respondents have stated that the petitioners were working on the post of Shift Manager and were admittedly possessing the education qualification i.e. Diploma in Indian Dairy. It is further submitted that petitioners were working in the cadre of Shift Manager and the persons against whom, they are claiming parity were working in different cadre, therefore, as the cadre are different and petitioners were not possessing the requisite qualification of degree, therefore, they are not entitled for grant of time pay scale on the ground of non-fulfilling the requisite qualification. 5. An objection has been raised that the present petition is barred by limitation, as the petitioners were retired employees and after retirement, they have preferred the present petition, therefore, present petition is time barred, hence the respondents have rightly not extended the benefit of time pay scale to the petitioners. 6. I have heard the submissions made by both the parties and perused the record. 7. The respondents in their reply had denied the benefit of time pay scale to the petitioners on the ground that petitioners were not possessing the requisite degree, therefore, they are not entitled to get the time pay scale. 6. I have heard the submissions made by both the parties and perused the record. 7. The respondents in their reply had denied the benefit of time pay scale to the petitioners on the ground that petitioners were not possessing the requisite degree, therefore, they are not entitled to get the time pay scale. Learned counsel for the petitioners has drawn my attention to the seniority list (Annexure P-1) by which the respondents have granted the benefit of time pay scale to an employee who is junior to the petitioners and is possessing the degree of IDD. The name of such person is Ayaz Ahmed whose name appeared at serial No.10 in the seniority list. The respondents have not denied this fact that the benefit has been extended to the similarly situated employees. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioners further relied on a decision passed by this Court in the case of Dinesh Kumar Tiwari v. State of M.P. [2015(4) MPLJ 144]. The relevant part of the said judgment is as under :- From the aforesaid judgments of the apex Court the principle of law is clear that the employees who are part of the same cadre and rank, they cannot be treated differently for the purpose of pay and allowances. In the present case, the petitioner has been differentiated in regard to grant of second time scale pay on the ground that he was promoted second time on a post which was 100% promotional post. The petitioner has specifically pleaded that due to aforesaid differentiation, his juniors who were recruited in the year 2002 were getting higher pay in comparison to the present petitioner. The petitioner has also filed the noting of the Department in regard to grant of time scale pay to the employees. The Director in his noting has clearly mentioned that the junior employees were getting higher pay in comparison to the senior employees. The Additional Chief Secretary of Department in her nothing dated 20.2.2013 has opined that due to anomaly in regard to grant of second time scale 161 junior Officers were getting higher pay scale and salary in comparison to senior Officers. The Additional Chief Secretary of Department in her nothing dated 20.2.2013 has opined that due to anomaly in regard to grant of second time scale 161 junior Officers were getting higher pay scale and salary in comparison to senior Officers. The object of the Scheme in regard to grant of time Scale which was introduced vide Circular dated 24.1.2008 was to grant benefit of Time Scale of pay to the members of State Civil Services for the purpose of advancement of their career. It is mentioned in the Scheme that A and B grade employees of Civil Services would be eligible to get the benefit after 8 years of their appointment and Class-III employees shall be eligible to get the benefit after 10 years of completing the service. There is no mention in the Scheme that the benefit of Second Time Scale Pay would not be made applicable to those employees who have been promoted on a 100% promotional post. The aforesaid provision has been introduced by way of clarification. In the aforesaid circular no reasons has been assigned for discrimination. It is contrary to the principle of law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and others v. Atul Shukla and others, quoted above that if two employees are part of the same cadre and rank, they cannot be treated differently for the purpose of pay and allowances. Article 14 of the Constitution of India forbids class legislation. In my opinion, by the act of clarification, the Finance Department has created two class of employees i.e. one class who are eligible to get benefit of second time scale pay, if they are promoted on a post which is partially by direct recruitment and partially by promotion and IInd class of employees who are promoted on a post which is 100% promotional post. It has created class within the class and due to the aforesaid anomaly the juniors were getting higher pay scale in comparison to the Seniors. The act is arbitrary, illegal and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Consequently, the petition of the petitioner is allowed. It has created class within the class and due to the aforesaid anomaly the juniors were getting higher pay scale in comparison to the Seniors. The act is arbitrary, illegal and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Consequently, the petition of the petitioner is allowed. The respondents are directed to grant the benefit of second time scale pay to the petitioner ignoring the fact that he was promoted on a post which was 100% promotional post in accordance with the Scheme of Time Scale of Pay 24.1.2008 (Annexure P-1). If the case of the petitioner has not been considered, the same shall be considered in accordance with the Scheme and if the petitioner is found eligible, then the benefit be granted to him from the date of his entitlement in accordance with the Scheme. The arrears be also paid to the petitioner and his pay be fixed accordingly. The petitioner has been retired, his retiral benefits i.e. pension and Gratuity etc., be calculated accordingly within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the copy of the order. No order as to the costs. 9. In the light of aforesaid judgment as well as the fact that respondents have not denied the fact that persons who are similarly situated with the petitioners have been extended the same benefit, therefore, this petition filed by the petitioners deserves to be and is hereby allowed. Respondents are directed to extend the benefit the revised pay scale of Rs.15600-39100+5400 grade pay from the date of grant of other similarly situated persons. The amount be paid within a period of six months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order. 10. Accordingly, petition is allowed without any order as to costs. Anand Agrawal for petitioners; Piyush Jain, Government Advocate for respondents/State.