The court upheld the petitioner's claim for regular pay scale and pay fixation based on previous orders and judgments, including the decision in the case of Smt. Usha Ranawat.

Rajendra Menon, J.;-

1. Petitioner claims grant of regular pay scale from the initial date of appointment. The benefit is claimed by the petitioner in the light of the order passed by the Division Bench at Indore Bench of this Court, in W.A. No. 346/2008 (Smt. Usha Ranawat Vs. State of M.P. and others), dated 18-12-2008. By the aforesaid order passed, more than 25 writ appeals claiming similar benefits were decided and it was directed that the benefit of pay fixation in the regular pay scale from the initial date of appointment shall be made to the petitioners therein. In fact the Division Bench has upheld the orders passed by the learned Single Judge in various cases and while deciding the writ appeals in para-19 the following directions were issued by the Division Bench:

19. In view of the foregoing discussion, the appeal filed by writ petitions succeeds and is allowed whereas writ appeals filed by the State are dismissed in limine. Impugned order of Single Bench is modified to the extent that appellant (writ petitioner) in addition to all benefits awarded by the Single Judge in the impugned order would also be entitled to claim arrears of his salary from the date of his initial appointment. In other words, the appellant will be entitled to claim the benefit of his pay fixation i.e. regular pay scale from the date of his initiate appointment. Let the calculation be made by respondents in the light of appellant's date of initial appointment and accordingly, the arrears payable to appellant towards his salary be paid to him/her in each case, which are subject matter of these appeals within a period of 6 months from the date of this order.

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, it is seen that the point involved in this petition has already been put to rest by the Tribunal long back in Madhukant Yadu Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, in O.A. No. 2745/1989, decided on 24.8.1992. Said decision was assailed by the State Government by preferring an SLP before the Apex Court, which was registered as SLP No. 6892/1993 and the same has been dismissed on 3.1.1999. Later on, the Principal Seat as well as the Benches at Gwalior and Indore have decided hundreds of petitions in the light of the said decision and, therefore, there is no reason why petitioner can be deprived of the benefit, which was extended in the case of Madhukant Yadu to similarly situated other co-employees.

2. This Court also in a Division Bench decision in the case of State of MP and others Vs. Beni Singh Rathod, W.P. No. 648/02, decided on 1.5.02, which is also applicable in this petition.

3. At this juncture, I may profitably refer to the Single Bench decision of this Court in the case of Rajendra Kumar Pande and five others Vs. State of MP and others, in W.P. No. 8928/03, decided on 21.4.2004, wherein the decision of Madhukant Yadu which was affirmed by the Supreme Court, was followed and all the objections which were raised by the respondents were not accepted.

4. In view of the above and the judgment delivered in the case as referred to hereinabove, this petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to extend the benefit of regular scale of pay granting the benefit of notional pay fixation since initial date of appointment of the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of communication of this order.

5. Even though this Court had been following the law laid down in the case of Smt. Usha Ranawat (supra), in various cases, and directed only for notional pay fixation and had refused arrears of pay on the ground that the petitioner has approached this Court belatedly. It is seen from the records that one such order passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 9564/2010 (Smt. Saroj Shah Vs. State of MP) which was assailed before a Division Bench of this Court in an intra court appeal, the learned Division Bench vide order-dated 28.7.2010, passed in W.A. No. 744/2010, after taking note of the principles laid down in the case of Bir Bajrang Kum