Back
2015 Supreme(MP) 600
MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
A.M. Khanwilkar, C.J. and K.K. Trivedi, J.
Kuldeep Singh Kushwah and others v. State of M.P. and others
Writ Petition No.16425 of 2014 (Jabalpur); Decided on 15.7.2015.
Manoj Sharma for petitioners;
Piyush Dharmadhikari, Government Advocate for respondents No.1 & 2;
Vivekanand Awasthy for respondent No.3.
Headnote:Pay Revision Rules, 2009 (M.P.) -- R.7 -- fixation of salary in terms of pay revision -- petitioners specifically appointed in pre-revised pay-scale of 15100-400-18300 -- revision of pay rules came into force for officers and employees of H.C. with effect from 1.1.2006 -- if two pay-scales merged in one revised pay-scale -- person getting salary in slightly higher pay-scale -- should not be put to financial loss on account of pay-scales -- salary was to be fixed in revised pay-scale in manner shown in Table 16-A -- fixation of salary in other manner cannot be just and proper -- petitioners treated as if they appointed in pay-scale of 14300-400-18300 -- petition allowed -- petitioners entitled to fixation of their salary in revised pay-scale in terms of Table 16-A -- respondents were directed to necessary exercise, revise and re-fix salary of petitioners from initial date of their appointment in revised pay-scale and pay all arrears of salary to petitioners.
Held : It is abundantly clear from the order of appointment issued in respect of the petitioners that they were specifically appointed in the pre-revised pay-scale of Rs.15100-400-18300/- and, therefore, on coming into force of the Revision of Pay Rules for the officers and employees of the High Court with effect from 1.1.2006, the salary of the petitioners was to be fixed in the revised pay scale in the manner indicated in Table 16-A.
The fixation of salary of the petitioners from the initial date of their appointment cannot be said to be just and proper. In view of the aforesaid, it is necessary for the respondents to refix the salary of the petitioners on revision of pay in terms of Table 16-A of the Revision of Pay Rules, as indicated herein above. The fixation of salary of the petitioners in the other manner cannot be said to be just and proper.
[Para 8
osru iqujh{k.k fu;e] 2009 ¼e-iz-½ && fu-7 && osru iqujh{k.k ds fuca/kuksa ds vuqlkj osru dk fu;ru && ;kphx.k 15100&400&18300 ds iwoZ iqujhf{kr osrueku esa fofufnZ"V :i ls fu;qDr fd, x, && osru iqujh{k.k fu;e mPp U;k;ky; ds vf/kdkfj;ksa rFkk deZpkfj;ksa ds fy, 1-1-2006 ls izHkko'khy gksdj izo`Ùk gq, && ;fn nks osrueku,d iqujhf{kr osrueku esa foyhu fd, tkrs gSa && FkksM+k Å¡pk osrueku izkIr dj jgs O;fDr && dks osrueku ds dkj.k foÙkh; uqDlku esa ugha j[kuk pkfg, && osru] lkj.kh 16&d esa n'kkZ, jhfr esa iqujhf{kr osrueku esa fu;r gksuk Fkk && osru dk vU; jhfr ls fu;ru Bhd rFkk mfpr ugha && ;kphx.k dks 14300&400&18300 ds osrueku esa fu;qDr fd, tkus dh rjg ekuk x;k && ;kfpdk eatwj && ;kphx.k vius osru dk lkj.kh 16&d ds fuca/kuksa ds vuqlkj iqujhf{kr osrueku esa fu;ru djkus ds gdnkj gS && izR;FkhZx.k dks vko';d iz;ksx djus] iqujh{k.k djus rFkk ;kphx.k dk iqujhf{kr osrueku esa mudh fu;qfDr dh izkjafHkd fnukad ls osru dk iqu% fu;ru djus rFkk ;kphx.k dks osru ds lHkh cdk;k lanÙk djus ds fy, funsf'kr fd;k x;kA
vfHkfu/kkZfjr % ;g ;kphx.k ds laca/k esa tkjh fd, x, fu;qfDr vkns'k ls ifjiw.kZ :i ls Li"V gS fd os #-15100&400&18300 ds iwoZ iqujhf{kr osrueku esa fofufnZ"V :i ls fu;qDr fd, x, rFkk blfy, mPp U;k;ky; ds vf/kdkfj;ksa rFkk deZpkfj;ksa ds fy, osru iqujh{k.k fu;e 1-1-2006 ls izHkko'khy gksdj izo`Ùk gksus ij ;kphx.k dk osru lkj.kh 16&d esa nf'kZr jhfr esa iqujhf{kr osru esa fu;r gksuk FkkA
;kphx.k dk osru mudh fu;qfDr dh izkjafHkd fnukad ls fu;r djuk Bhd rFkk mfpr ugha dgk tk ldrkA mijksDr dks n`f"V esa j[krs gq, izR;FkhZx.k dks ;kphx.k dk osru] osru iqujh{k.k fu;e dh lkj.kh 16&d ds fuca/kuksa ds vuqlkj] tSlk fd ;gk¡ Åij n'kkZ;k x;k gS] osru iqujh{k.k gksus ij iqu% fu;r djuk vko';d gSA ;kphx.k ds osru dk vU; jhfr ls fu;ru Bhd rFkk mfpr ugha dgk tk ldrkA ¼iSjk 8
Trivedi, J. -- 1. Three petitioners in the present writ petition have approached this Court ventilating their grievance in respect of fixation of their salary in terms of the pay revision, which has occasioned on account of adopting the Madhya Pradesh Pay Revision Rules, 2009 by the High Court. It is contended by the petitioners that they were initially appointed on their post of Registrar (I.T.) in the High Court, in the pay-scale of Rs.15100-400-18300/- on different dates. Petitioner No.1 was appointed on 23rd May, 2008 and petitioners No.2 and 3 were appointed on 10th July, 2009. The recommendations of the Pay Commission accepted by the State Government, formulated in the Madhya Pradesh Pay Revision Rules, 2009, were accepted by the High Court and in the revised pay-scale, the salary of the petitioners was required to be fixed in terms of the circular issued by the Finance Department of Government of Madhya Pradesh on 20th August, 2009. However, ignoring the table appended with the said instructions, the salary of the petitioners was fixed, which has resulted in loss of emoluments to them, therefore, they made representations, which were referred to the State Government. Certain clarification was asked by the High Court for fixation of the salary of the petitioners but since nothing was done, they were required to file the present writ petition. It is the contention of the petitioners that on account of wrong fixation of salary of the petitioners on revision of pay, they are paid less salary from the date of their initial appointment, whereas the revised pay-scales have been made applicable with effect from 1.1.2006. Accordingly, the reliefs are claimed in the writ petition to the following effect :
“(i) Call for the entire material record from the possession of the respondents, for its kind perusal;
(ii) Command and direct the respondents to accord fixation of pay of petitioners in terms of Table 16-A referable to pay-scale of Rs.15,100-18,300/- from their initial dates of appointment with all consequential benefits and arrears thereof with interest thereon;
(iii) Any other order/orders, direction/directions may also be passed;
(iv) Cost of the petition may also kindly be awarded.”
2. Upon service of notice of the writ petition, respondents have filed their return. It is contended by respondents No.1 and 2 in the return that since the option was not given in terms of Clarification No.3 so issued by the Finance Department of Government of Madhya Pradesh on 23.3.2009, the salary of the petitioners was rightly fixed. The revised pay scales were made applicable for the officers and employees of the High Court in terms of the consent granted by Hon’ble the Chief Justice vide order dated 27.6.2009. The revised pay scale of Rs.15100-400-18300/- is Rs.37400-67000/- with Grade Pay of Rs.8700/-. The salary of the petitioners is already fixed in terms of the aforesaid table, which is accepted by the High Court and, therefore, the claim made by the petitioners cannot be granted as their salary has rightly been fixed by the High Court.
3. The respondent No.3 has filed separate return contending inter alia that when the Revision of Pay Rules were made applicable to the officers and employees of the High Court, pay fixation of the petitioners was done in the revised pay scale taking into account the date of their initial appointment. Accordingly, rightful salary is being paid to the petitioners. When the claim was made before the Registry of the High Court by the petitioners, guidance was sought from the State Government as to whether salary of the petitioners was to be fixed in terms of the table, as indicated by the Finance Department. The repeated representations of the petitioners were forwarded to the State Government. Since the fixation of salary of the petitioners was rightly done, no relief whatsoever is required to be gr
