Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 724 (MP)

Bakhar Husain v. The State of M. P.

2021-11-10

ANAND PATHAK

body2021
ORDER 1. The present petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India prays for the following reliefs:- “7.1 That, a direction may kindly be given to the respondents to give the service benefit and pay scale of the post of the permanent classified Painter from the date of his classification as permanent employee to the petitioner and pay the arrears of salary on fixation of pay along with all consequence benefits with interest from the date of his classification. 7.2 That, the respondents may further be directed to treat the petitioner at par with their similarly placed co-employees with seniority and consequential benefits on the post of Painter from the date of his classification. 7.3 That, any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper and may also be given to the petitioner alongwith costs.” 2. It is submitted that the petitioner was appointed as a daily wage employee to the post of Chokidar in the respondents' department on 1.10.1993. The petitioner has been discharging his duties with honesty and sincerity. The petitioner has been declared as a classified permanent employee on the post of Chokidar by the order of respondent No.4 vide order dated 27.11.2004. The classification of the petitioner is intact till now and it has yet not been cancelled or modified. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is claiming the benefit of classification since from the date of classification i.e. the date on which the benefit of the policy introduced by the State Government was implemented upon the petitioner. The petitioner undertakes that the benefit of policy introduced by the State Govt. has been extended to the petitioner. The law in regard to the benefits flowing from an order of classification is now settled in view of the decision of apex Court in the case of Ram Naresh Rawat v. Ashwini Ray reported in 2017 (Vol 3) SCC 436 and the relevant extract of which is reproduced below for convenience and ready reference: “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 petitioner would also be entitled to the increments and other emoluments attached to the said post. 18. 18. Insofar as petitioner 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 grade pay-scale, at the same time, he would be getting only minimum of the said pay scale 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 petitioner 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.9). 28. These contempt petitions are, accordingly, dismissed”. 3. Learned Govt. Advocate for the State has no objection in considering the case of the petitioner in case a detailed representation is filed by the petitioner. 4. In view of the above and considering the statement made by the counsel for the petitioner, it is directed that the petitioner shall submit a detailed representation to the competent authority within a period of seven working days and in turn, the competent authority is directed to dwell upon and decide the same, subject to verification that the order of classification of the petitioner is not cancelled at any point of time, by passing a speaking order within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. Arrears if any be worked out, as a necessary consequence and be paid to the petitioner within a further period of two months. 5. With the aforesaid direction, the petition stands disposed of with. No order as to the cost.