Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 203 (MP)

ANIL TRIPATHI v. STATE OF M. P.

2021-02-22

S.A.DHARMADHIKARI

body2021
ORDER/JUDGMENT – Shri Anil Kumar Shrivastava, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Neelesh Singh Tomar, Government Advocate for the respondents/State. Heard finally with the consent of both the parties. 2. In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is aggrieved by the illegal and arbitrary action on the part of the respondent No. 2, whereby the recovery of Rs. 2,000/- per month has been ordered from the salary of the petitioner in compliance of the order dt. 8-11-2019 (Annexure P/6). It is further prayed that the respondents be directed to refund the amount already deposited with the interest @ 12% p.a. 3. Brief facts leading to filing of this petition are that the petitioner was initially appointed as daily wager on 1-8-1986. Taking into consideration the performance of the petitioner, his services have been regularized vide order dt. 20-10-2004 on the post of Assistant Grade III and his pay was fixed to the minimum of the scale of Rs. 3050/- + D.A. without increments. The petitioner was granted the benefit of financial increments as per Fifth, Sixth and Seventh Pay Commission, however, vide impugned order based on the letter dt. 8-11-2019 (Annexure P/6), the recovery of Rs. 2000/- p.m. has been made for the reason that the work charged contingency paid employee is not entitled to get the benefit of Seventh Pay Commission, therefore, the excess amount paid is to be recovered from the pay of the petitioner. Being aggrieved, the present petition has been filed. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits impugned order passed is illegal and discriminatory. Similarly situated employees had writ petitions before the Principal Seat as well as Indore Bench of this Court, which were allowed. One such case is W. P. No. 5332/2010 (S), which was allowed vide order dt. 3-7-2012 and the said order was confirmed in the SLP filed by the State government. Therefore, the benefit of Sixth Pay Commission was granted to the employees. Thereafter, the Seventh Pay Commission was made applicable to the State Government employees w.e.f. 1-1-2016. Once the benefit of Fifth and Sixth Pay Commission has already been extended to the petitioner at part with the other State Government employees, then he is also entitled to get the benefit of Seventh Pay Commission. He further submits that it is not in dispute that the petitioner is not a regular employee. Once the benefit of Fifth and Sixth Pay Commission has already been extended to the petitioner at part with the other State Government employees, then he is also entitled to get the benefit of Seventh Pay Commission. He further submits that it is not in dispute that the petitioner is not a regular employee. Therefore, the stand taken by the respondents in the reply that the petitioner is not a regular employee cannot be countenanced. The discriminatory attitude adopted by the respondents with the regular employee can not be a ground for not granting the benefit of Seven Pay Commission. 5. Per contra, respondents filed the reply and in the reply, it is submitted that the petitioner is a daily wager employee and therefore the Madhya Pradesh Pay Revision Rules, 2017 (hereinafter shall be referred to as the Rules of 2017) are not applicable to him as per Rule 2(b)(1) of the Rules of 2017. The impugned order has been rightly passed by the Chief Engineer and recovery of Rs. 2,000/- per month is rightly made from the salary of the petitioner. It is further submitted that the benefit of minimum pay scale as per Sixth Pay Commission has been extended to the petitioner in compliance of the order passed by this Court, which can not be extended for the purpose of implementation of the recommendation of 7th Pay Commission, therefore, the petition deserves to be dismissed. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 7. As per order dt. 20-10-2004 (Annexure P/3), the petitioner has been appointed as regular employee on the post of Assistant Grade III on the minimum pay scale of Rs. 3050 with D.A., therefore, the stand that the petitioner is not a regular employee can not be countenanced. Admittedly, the benefit of recommendations of Fifth and Sixth Pay Commission has been extended to the petitioner. The petitioner is performing the work as a regular employee, therefore, he is entitled for the benefits of Seventh Pay Commission. The Indore Bench of this Court in W. P. No. 8049/2019 vide order dt. 29-8-2019 has allowed the identical writ petition and extended the benefit of Seventh Pay Commission to the petitioner therein. Thus, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the action of the respondents in not extending the benefit of Seventh Pay Commission to the petitioner is per se illegal and discriminatory. 8. 29-8-2019 has allowed the identical writ petition and extended the benefit of Seventh Pay Commission to the petitioner therein. Thus, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the action of the respondents in not extending the benefit of Seventh Pay Commission to the petitioner is per se illegal and discriminatory. 8. Resultantly, the writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to grant the benefit of revision of pay scale on the recommendations of Seventh Pay Commission to the petitioner along with arrears of salary, if any and the respondents are further directed to refund the amount of Rs. 2,000/- per month, which may have been recovered from the salary of the petitioner, within a period of three months from the date of certified copy of the order passed today. 9. The writ petition stands allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove.