Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 461 (MP)

Mannulal Jain v. M. P. State Electricity Board

2023-04-05

RAVI MALIMATH, VISHAL MISHRA

body2023
ORDER 1. Assailing the order dated 9.1.2007 passed by the learned Single Judge in allowing the Writ Petition No.3461 of 1999, the respondent No.1 therein is in appeal. 2. It is the case of the appellant that he was an employee in the respondent department working on the post of Driver. A post was created of Crane Operator (Plant Assistant Grade-I) in pursuance to the order dated 27.12.1979 in the pay scale of Rs. 425-15-435-18-557-EB-20-679 and the appellant was appointed against the said sanctioned post vide order dated 6.11.1981 under the temporary Work Charge Establishment on a fixed pay of Rs.550/-. His services were subsequently regularized and he was granted a pay scale of Rs.550-822/-. It is the case of the appellant that he was already working as a Crane Operator since his induction in service as a regular driver on 11.3.1976. The services are governed by Madhya Pradesh Industrial Relations Act, 1960 (for short “ the MPIR Act”) and also by Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board Regulation for revision of pay scale for Class-III and IV employees. It is his case that pay scale of Crane Operator was Rs.665-20-745-20-883-EB-25-1008 w.e.f 1.4.1980. The same was revised w.e.f 1.4.1984 from Rs.960-1480/-. Again revised from Rs.1550-2800/- w.e.f from 1.4.1989 again revised as Rs.3560-7700/- w.e.f 1.4.1994 and the same was again revised w.e.f 1.1.2001 as Rs.5100-10850/-. The appellant submitted various representations to the authorities for grant of revised pay scale in terms of the revision of pay rules applicable to the appellant but of no consequence. He preferred an application under section 31(3) read with section 64-A and 108 of MPIR Act before the Labour Court. The application was rejected by the labour Court vide order dated 19.8.1997 against which he preferred an appeal before the State Industrial Court under section 65 of the MPIR Act. The same was allowed vide order dated 13.5.1999 setting aside the order passed by the Labour Court directing the respondent/Board to give him proper pay scale of Rs. 665-1008/- of Crane Operator from the date of regularization of the appellant i.e 19.10.1982. The State Industrial Court further directed to pay the revised scales made effective from time to time. The same was allowed vide order dated 13.5.1999 setting aside the order passed by the Labour Court directing the respondent/Board to give him proper pay scale of Rs. 665-1008/- of Crane Operator from the date of regularization of the appellant i.e 19.10.1982. The State Industrial Court further directed to pay the revised scales made effective from time to time. Against the order passed by the Industrial Court, the Board has preferred the writ petition on the ground that new posts of Crane Operator was sanctioned in the fixed pay scale of Rs.425- 697/- which is reflected from order dated 27.12.1979. The appointment of the appellant was made in pursuance to the order dated 27.12.1979. He was entitled to be granted the pay scale of Rs.425-697/-. The same was already granted to him as it was a new sanctioned post granted to the appellant in a fixed pay scale therefore the benefit of revised pay scale as applicable to Class-III and IV employees is not applicable in the case of the appellant. The writ petition came up for hearing and was decided by the impugned order dated 9.1.2007. The same was allowed on the ground that the appointment of the petitioner was against the newly sanctioned posts in terms of order dated 27.12.1979 in a fixed pay scale. The appellant having accepted the terms and conditions of the order dated 27.12.1979 was granted appointment on the post of Crane Operator in the fixed pay scale. Therefore, the benefit of pay scale of the Crane Operator cannot be extended to him. The aforesaid aspect was considered by the learned Labour Court. Therefore, the writ petition was allowed. 3. The same has been assailed by filing a writ appeal on the sole ground that the services of petitioners are governed by the Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board Regulations for revision of pay scale of Class-III and IV employees. The pay scales of Crane Operator are provided along with the revised pay scale from time to time. The appellant was already working on the post of Driver as a Crane Operator and was getting the pay scale and therefore is entitled to revised pay scale of the Crane Operator which is revised from time to time. 4. The pay scales of Crane Operator are provided along with the revised pay scale from time to time. The appellant was already working on the post of Driver as a Crane Operator and was getting the pay scale and therefore is entitled to revised pay scale of the Crane Operator which is revised from time to time. 4. The stand of the respondent is that in terms of the Board resolution, two new posts were sanctioned and his pay scale was given and the appellant was given appointment on that post. Therefore, it can be said to be a fresh appointment of the petitioner on the aforesaid posts. The pay scale of the Crane Operator has been provided in the schedule which is revised from time to time. There cannot be two pay scales for the same post in question. The pay scale of a Crane Operator is shown to be Rs.665-1008/- and corresponding revised pay scale is Rs.960-1480/-. The appellant is entitled for the aforesaid post made applicable from 1.4.1984 and subsequent pay scales revised from time to time. 5. Counsel for the respondents have supported the impugned order pointing out the fact that the writ Court has rightly considered all the aspects of the matter and found that there were two new posts sanctioned under the resolution of the Board in a fixed pay scale. The appellant was appointed on that post and entitled to be fixed in the pay scale as provided in the order dated 27.12.1979. Having done so, there would not be any entitlement of the appellant to claim the revised pay scale in terms of the schedule. The learned Industrial Court has failed to appreciate the aforesaid aspects of the case which has rightly been considered by the writ Court and therefore the writ petition was allowed. He has prayed for dismissal of the writ appeal. 6. Heard the learned counsels for the parties and perused the record. 7. From the perusal of the record, the sole question for consideration before this Court is regarding the entitlement of the appellant on the particular pay scale. It is not in dispute that revision of pay is applicable to the case of the appellant in terms of Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board Regularization for revision of pay scales of Class-III and IV employees. It is not in dispute that revision of pay is applicable to the case of the appellant in terms of Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board Regularization for revision of pay scales of Class-III and IV employees. Admittedly, on 27.12.1979, two more posts were created of Crane Operator in the pay scale of Rs.425-697/- but in terms of schedule which is filed along with writ petition, the pay scale of the Crane Operator has been shown which is found to be different. The pay scale of Crane Operator w.e.f 1.4.1980 it shown to be Rs.540-20- 620-22-708-EB-25-883 and the corresponding pay scale was Rs.665-20-745-22- 833-EB-25-1008. The aforesaid pay scale was further revised to Rs.960-25- 1060-30-1180-35-1320-40-1480 w.e.f 1.4.1984 and again revised to Rs.1550- 50-1650-60-1950-75-2400-100-2800. The petitioner was already working as Crane Operator from his initial date of appointment. 8. A specific question was put to the counsel for the respondent that how many posts of Crane Operator were available in the department whether any post of Crane Operator was available prior to sanctioning of these two posts. He fairly submits that the Crane Operator were already working in the respondent department prior to sanctioning of these two posts. Another question which was put to the counsel for the respondent that how there can be two pay scales of the same post in question, he could not respond to the same but only submits that these two posts are newly sanctioned posts in the particular pay scale and the appellant’s appointment on the post of Crane Operator was in pursuance to the order dated 29.12.1997. Therefore, in absence of any justification to the fact that how there can be two corresponding pay scales for the same post in question, no benefit could have been extended to him. The Industrial Court has rightly passed the order directing for extension of benefit of revised pay scale to the appellant as claimed. The writ Court has failed to take into consideration the aforesaid aspect of the case and allowed the writ petition. 9. Counsel for the respondents could not give any explanation to the fact that how there can be two pay scales for the same posts except the explanation that two posts have been sanctioned by the Board in a particular pay scale. 9. Counsel for the respondents could not give any explanation to the fact that how there can be two pay scales for the same posts except the explanation that two posts have been sanctioned by the Board in a particular pay scale. The sanctioning of two additional posts is not disputed but it does not mean that the pay scale on the post of Crane Operator can be different from what has been provided in the schedule. Under these circumstances, the appellant is found entitled to grant of benefit of revised pay scale as claimed by him. The order passed by the Industrial Court order dated 13.5.1999 is just and proper and the same does not call for any interference in the proceedings. Accordingly, the order passed by the Labour Court as well as the learned writ Court are unsustainable and the same are hereby set aside. 10. The respondents are directed to extend the benefit to the appellant in terms of the order passed by the Industrial Court. The arrears be calculated and paid to the appellant along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of entitlement of the petitioner as pointed out by the Industrial Court till the actual realization. The entire exercise be completed within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. 11. The Writ Appeal stands allowed and disposed off. No order as to costs.