Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 277 (MP)

State of Madhya Pradesh v. Mohanlal Chouhan

2017-02-21

PRAKASH SHRIVASTAVA

body2017
JUDGMENT : Mr. Prakash Shrivastava, J. 1. Heard finally with consent. 2. By this writ petition the petitioner/State of M.P. has challenged the award of the Labour Court dated 25.10.2013 passed in Case No.5/2013 ID (Reference). 3. In brief, the case of the respondents before the Labour Court was that they were initially appointed as Pump Attendant, Labourer and Chowkidar etc. w.e.f. 1989, 1985 and 1978 and in the year 2000 they were classified as permanent under the M.P. Standing orders but they were not given the regular pay-scale. 4. The case of the respondents was opposed by the petitioner taking a stand that merely on classification as permanent employees, the respondents do not become as regular employees and they cannot be granted the regular pay-scale. 5. The Labour Court by the impugned award has held that respondents were classified in the year 2001 by the Chief Engineer as Permanent employees, therefore they were entitled to the regular pay-scale from the date of their classification as permanent employee and accordingly direction was issued by the Labour Court. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, it is noticed that Labour Court has committed error in proceeding on the basis that classification of a permanent employee is same as the regularisation of the employee. Such an approach of Labour Court is not correct in law. This very issue has been examined by the Supreme Court in the matter of Ram Naresh Rawat v. Shri Ashwini Ray and others in Contempt Petition Nos.771/2015 and SLP(C) No.25284/2012 vide order dated 15.12.2016 wherein the Supreme Court has clearly spelt out the distinction between the permanent employee and a regular employee and has held that permanent employee is only entitled to the minimum of the pay-scale without any increments and it is only on the regulation in service that he would be entitled to the grant of increment etc. in the pay-scale. The Supreme Court in the matter of Ram Naresh Rawat (supra) has held as under :- 25. It is, thus, somewhat puzzling as to whether the employee, on getting the designation of ‘permanent employee’ can be treated as ‘regular’ employee. This answer does not flow from the reading of the Standing Orders Act and Rules. in the pay-scale. The Supreme Court in the matter of Ram Naresh Rawat (supra) has held as under :- 25. It is, thus, somewhat puzzling as to whether the employee, on getting the designation of ‘permanent employee’ can be treated as ‘regular’ employee. This answer does not flow from the reading of the Standing Orders Act and Rules. In common parlance, normally, a person who is known as ‘permanent employee’ would be treated as a regular employee but it does not appear to be exactly that kind of situation in the instant case when we find that merely after completing six months’ service an employee gets right to be treated as ‘permanent employee’. Moreover, this Court has, as would be noticed now, drawn a distinction between ‘permanent employee’ and ‘regular employee’. 26. We may mention, at this stage that this aspect has come up for consideration, in another context, in State of Madhya Pradesh and Others v. Dilip Singh Patel and Others. That was a case where similarly situated employees, who were classified as ‘permanent employees’ under the Standing Orders Act, were given minimum of the pay-scale attached to their posts. However, after the implementation of Sixth Pay Commission, benefits thereof were not extended to these employees. High Court held that they would be entitled to have their pay fixed as per the revised scales in accordance with the recommendations of Sixth Pay Commission which were accepted qua regular employees. This Court, though, upheld the orders of the High Court giving them the benefit of revision of pay-scale pertained to Sixth Pay Commission, but at the same time made it clear that they would be entitled to minimum salary and allowances as per the said revised scales and would not be entitled to any increments. It was further held that such increments would be admissible only after regularisation of their services which regularisation was to take place as per the seniority list with due procedure. Following passage from the said judgment, which captures the aforesaid directions, is quoted hereunder: “We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. It appears that the respondents earlier moved before the Administrative Tribunal, Gwalior by filing original applications such as O.A. No. 648 of 1995, O.A. No. 293 of 1991 etc. Following passage from the said judgment, which captures the aforesaid directions, is quoted hereunder: “We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. It appears that the respondents earlier moved before the Administrative Tribunal, Gwalior by filing original applications such as O.A. No. 648 of 1995, O.A. No. 293 of 1991 etc. In compliance of the orders passed in such original applications, the Chief Engineer, Yamuna Kachhar, Water Resources Department, Gwalior (M.P.)(by orders issued in between April,. 2004 and June, 2004 provided the minimum wages and allowances to the respondents without increment as per the Schedule of the pay scale from the date of the order of the Tribunal. It was further ordered that the regularization of the daily wages employees shall be made as per the seniority list with due procedure and the benefit of increment and other benefits can only be granted after the regularisation as per the Rules. It was ordered that the order of the Court for benefit of minimum wages and allowances shall be”......... From the aforesaid facts, it is clear that the respondents are entitled for minimum wages and allowance as per the fixed Schedule of the pay scale but without any increment. In such case, if the pay scale is revised from time to time including the pay-scale as revised pursuant to Sixth Pay Commission, the respondents will be entitled to minimum wages and allowance as per the said revised scale without increment. Only after regularisation of their service, as per seniority and rules, they can claim the benefit of increment and other benefits.” 27. From the aforesaid, it follows that though a ‘permanent employee’ has right to receive pay in the graded pay-scale, at the same time, he would be getting only minimum of the said pay-scale with no increments. It is only the regularisation in service which would entail grant of increments etc. in the pay-scale. 28. In view of the aforesaid, we do not find any substance in the contentions raised by the petitioners in these contempt petitions. We are conscious of the fact that in some cases, on earlier occasions, the State Government while fixing the pay scale, granted increments as well. However, if some persons are given the benefit wrongly, that cannot form the basis of claiming the same relief. We are conscious of the fact that in some cases, on earlier occasions, the State Government while fixing the pay scale, granted increments as well. However, if some persons are given the benefit wrongly, that cannot form the basis of claiming the same relief. It is trite that right to equality under Article 14 is not in negative terms (See Indian Council of Agricultural Research & Anr. v. T.K. Suryanarayan & Ors.9).” 7. Keeping in view the aforesaid position in law, I am of the opinion that impugned award of the Labour Court to the extent it directs the petitioners to pay the regular pay-scale with all other benefits from the date of classification as permanent employee, cannot be sustained and is hereby set aside by holding that respondents will be entitled to the minimum of the pay-scale from the date of their classification as permanent employee without any increment. They would be entitled to the regular pay-scale and increment from the date as and when they are regularised. 8. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. C.c. as per rules.