Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 311 (MP)

Mithla Bai v. State of M. P.

2021-03-04

G.S.AHLUWALIYA

body2021
JUDGMENT : Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia, J. Heard through Video Conferencing 1. Learned counsel for the State has sought issuance of notice in the present case since it is his contention that instead of disposing of this matter in limine, it would be appropriate to hear the State before deciding the controversy as according to the State counsel in all probability, the petitioner must have been declared as Sthai Karmi under 2016 executive instructions issued by the State of M.P., and therefore, any order passed without hearing the State would lead to an incongruous situation where petitioner on one hand has received benefits under Sthai Karmi scheme and would also become entitled of the benefits flowing from the ratio of decision Ram Naresh Rawat Vs. Sri Ashwani Ray & Ors. reported in (2017) 3 SCC 436 . 2. This Court, after hearing learned counsel for the State, does not deem it appropriate to issue notice for the simple reason that even if the petitioner has been benefited by the Sthai Karmi scheme, she cannot be deprived of the benefit flowing from the decision of Apex Court in Ram Naresh Rawat (Supra) as the judgment the Apex Court is the law of land which is not subservient to the executive instructions issued by the State qua Sthai Karmi Scheme. The benefits flowing from the decision of Ram Naresh Rawat (Supra) of grant of wages equivalent to the minimum of the regular pay-scale of the corresponding post in the regular establishment without increments, cannot be denied to the petitioner who has been classified as a permanent employee. 3. It is needless to emphasize that in case the benefit received/receivable by the petitioner under Sthai Karmi Scheme is not as beneficial as the benefit flowing from the verdict of Ram Naresh Rawat, then the petitioner would certainly be entitled to the benefit under Ram Naresh Rawat Case. However, in case benefit flowing from Sthai Karmi Scheme is comparatively more beneficial, then it is for the petitioner to choose whether to opt for Sthai Karmi Scheme or to go in for the lesser benefit under Ram Naresh Rawat verdict. Any such option made by the petitioner in latter eventuality as aforesaid, would be binding on the employer. 4. However, in case benefit flowing from Sthai Karmi Scheme is comparatively more beneficial, then it is for the petitioner to choose whether to opt for Sthai Karmi Scheme or to go in for the lesser benefit under Ram Naresh Rawat verdict. Any such option made by the petitioner in latter eventuality as aforesaid, would be binding on the employer. 4. The basic grievance of the petitioner is that despite being classified as a permanent employee on the post of Gangman vide order dated 22.03.2005, the petitioner still continues to receive daily wages which is less than the minimum stage of regular pay-scale without increments. 5. The pecuniary entitlement of daily wager after being classified as permanent employee is no more res integra in view of the decision of the Apex Court in Ram Naresh Rawat Vs. Sri Ashwani Ray & Ors. reported in (2017) 3 SCC 436 in which it is held thus:- "4. ................ The precise submission is that once they are conferred the status of permanent employee by the court and it is also categorically held that they are entitled to regular pay attached to the said post, not only the pay should be fixed in the regular pay-scale, the petitioners would also be entitled to the increments and other emoluments attached to the said post. 18. Insofar as petitioners before us are concerned they have been classified as 'permanent'. For this reason, we advert to the core issue, which would determine the fate of these cases, viz., whether these employees can be treated as 'regular' employees in view of the aforesaid classification? In other words, with their classification as 'permanent', do they stand regularized in service?" 26. 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 payscale with no increments. It is only the regularization in service which would entail grant of increments etc. in the pay scale. 27. 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. in the pay scale. 27. 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. 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.). 28. These contempt petitions are, accordingly, dismissed." 6. In view of above, the petitioner on being classified as a permanent employee is entitled to minimum of the regular pay-scale without increments. 7. Accordingly, the respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner in terms of law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Ram Naresh Rawat (supra) and grant benefit if not already granted as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of two months from the date of passing of this order. 8. This order shall become otiose or ineffective if the respondents have cancelled the order of classification passed in favour of petitioner. 9. With the aforesaid direction, the present petition stands disposed of. 10. No cost.