Back
NANDITA DUBEY
Ravindra Kumar Saxena – Appellant
Versus
State of M. P. – Respondent
ORDER
1. The petitioner has been classified as permanent by an order dated 7.2.2004 (Annexure-P/2) and his grievance is that he has not been paid minimum of the pay scale without increments by the respondents.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon a judgment delivered by the apex Court in the case of Ram Naresh Rawat v. Ashwini Devi and others reported (2017) 3 SCC 436 : 2017 (153) FLR 609 wherein it has been held as under :
“21. It is, thus, somewhat puzzling as to whether the employee, on getting the designation of 'permanent employee' can be treated as 'regular' employee. This answer does not flow from the reading of the Standing Orders Act and Rules. In common parlance, normally, a person who is known as 'permanent employee' would be treated as a regular employee but it does not appear to be exactly that kind of situation in the instant case when we find that merely after completing six months' service an employee gets right to be treated as 'permanent employee'. Moreover, this Court has, as would be noticed now, drawn a distinction between 'permanent employee' and 'regular employee'.
22. We may mention, at this stage that this aspect has come up fo
Permanent employees classified under M.P. Standing Orders are entitled to revised pay scales without increment until regularization.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
