Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 52 (MP)

Bhojraj Rajoria v. State of M. P.

2021-01-20

VISHAL MISHRA

body2021
JUDGMENT : Vishal Mishra, J. 1. In the wake of unprecedented and uncertain situation due to outbreak of the Novel Corona virus (COVID-19) and considering the advisories issued by the Government of India, this application has been heard and decided through video conferencing to maintain social distancing. The parties are being represented by the respective counsel through video conferencing, following the norms of social distancing/physical distancing in letter and spirit. 2. The present petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution prays for the following reliefs :- "(i) Direct the respondents to extend all service benefit of Kramonnat pay scale from the date when it was given to similar employees working in work-charge establishment by order dated 27/29-03 2001(sic); (ii) Direct the respondents to extend all service benefit of kramonnat pay scale and arrears amount with interest from the date when it was given to other similar employees working under work-charge establishment; (iii). Direct the respondents to decide kramonnat benefit in the light of the orders of this Hon. High Court annexure P1 and P12 within time period; (iv) That, any other relief which is suitable in the facts and circumstances of the case in favour of the petitioner may be granted" 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was initially appointed as mixer operation on 30.3.1979. The petitioner had performed his duties with sincerity and utmost devotion since last more than 24/39 years. He attained the age of superannuation on 31.5.2014. The petitioner had worked as stated herein above under work charge establishment and since then not getting any promotion or any up-gradation in the pay in view of the instructions issued by the State Government from time to time. In exercise of power, conferred under Article 309 of the Constitution of India, the State Government has framed Rules which are known as M.P. Irrigation Department Work Charge Contingency Paid Employee, Recruitment & Service Condition Rules, 1977. The Government of Madhya Pradesh has also issued notification in view of the Pay Commission 1981, on 14th of October, 1982 wherein post of Time Keeper is specified. Thereafter Rules of Work Charge & Contingency Paid Employee Revision of Pay Rules, 1984 have been framed. The Government of M.P. formulated policy for up-gradation of the employees for upliftment of the standard and moral, therefore introduced scheme of kramonnati vetanman/time scale which was revised as time scale of pay. Thereafter Rules of Work Charge & Contingency Paid Employee Revision of Pay Rules, 1984 have been framed. The Government of M.P. formulated policy for up-gradation of the employees for upliftment of the standard and moral, therefore introduced scheme of kramonnati vetanman/time scale which was revised as time scale of pay. On account of non-grant of benefit of gradation of pay/kramonnati pay vetanman/time scale of pay certain work charge contingency employee approached before this Hon'ble Court in W.P. No. 53/2008 (S) and this Hon'ble Court has allowed the said petition vide order dated 20th of March, 2009. Once the controversy involved in this case was already been resolved by this Hon'ble Court, with regard to granting of kramonnati vetanman/time scale pay, the similarly situated employees have made representations to their employers but they failed to consider the same and sitting tight over the matter. As the action on the part of the respondents is hostile, discriminatory and affects their rightful claim, therefore, many similarly situated employees approached before this Hon'ble Court seeking directions to the respondents grant the benefit as has been awarded in similar cases. Therefore, the petitioner has also preferred representation before the respondents authorities for grant of benefits of first/second kramonnati on completion of 12/24 years services or 10/20 years services as per their entitlement, but of no avail. Learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance in the case of K.L. Asre Vs. The State of M.P. in W.P. No. 1070/2003 decided on 17.11.2005. 4. Counsel for the petitioner has prayed that the respondent No. 3 may be directed to decide the representation within the stipulated time. 5. Learned counsel for the State has no objection to the innocuous prayer made by the counsel for the petitioner. 6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, this petition is disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to resubmit a detailed representation to the respondent No. 3 within a period of seven working days along with all the relevant documents and a copy of this order and in turn, the respondent No. 3 will dwell upon the same and decide it within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order in the light of the judgment rendered by this court in the case of K.L. Asre (Supra), leaving the question of delay open to the authorities. If the petitioner is found entitled to revised vetanman or kramonnati as stated herein above, the same shall be extended to him within the further period of two months. However, looking to the period of delay being caused by the petitioner in approaching this court, the petitioner will not be entitled for interest on the arrears. 7. The petition is disposed of. 8. It is made clear that this Court has not made any comments upon merits of the case. 9. E-copy of this order be provided to the petitioner and it is made clear that E-copy of this order shall be treated as certified copy for practical purposes in respect of this order. 10. CC as per rules.