Back
2023 Supreme(MP) 646
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH AT INDORE
Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari, J.
Girdhari Lal Panchal – Appellant
Versus
Public Works Department Principal Secretary Vallabh Bhawan (Madhya Pradesh & Ors. – Respondents
Writ Petition No. 16882 of 2018
Decided On : 19-10-2023
Shri Khen Chand Raikwar, Learned Counsel for the Appellant; Shri Mukesh Parwal.Govt. Advocate for the Respondent/State.
Contingency paid employees are entitled to similar treatment as work charged employees under the statutory rules, and parity in employment must be maintained.
Headnote:
Kramonnati - Work Assistant - M.P. Education Department (Technical Branch) Contingency Paid Employees Recruitment and Conditions of Service Rules, 1978, M.P. (Work Charged and Contingency Paid Employees) Pension Rules, 1979, M.P. Work Charged and Contingency Paid Employees Revision of Pay Rules, 1990 - The court discussed the applicability of the time bound promotion scheme to contingency paid employees and work charged employees, emphasizing the similarity in their treatment under the statutory rules and the need for parity in employment. The court directed the respondents to extend the benefit of promotion to the petitioner and grant necessary orders within 3 months.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought the benefit of 2nd Kramonnati after his promotion on the post of Work Assistant in the PWD department, Ratlam, following completion of 12 years of service. The respondents declined the benefit, citing the petitioner's retirement and the absence of a policy for granting Kramonnati to work charge and contingency establishment employees.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner, as a contingency paid employee, was entitled to the benefit of promotion under the time bound promotion scheme, emphasizing the similarity in treatment of contingency paid and work charged employees under the statutory rules. The court directed the respondents to grant all consequential benefits within 3 months.
Issues: The issues involved the petitioner's entitlement to the benefit of 2nd Kramonnati after promotion and the applicability of the time bound promotion scheme to contingency paid employees.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that contingency paid employees, like work charged employees, are entitled to similar treatment under the statutory rules, emphasizing the need for parity in employment and the absence of justification for differential treatment. The court directed the respondents to extend the benefit of promotion to the petitioner and grant necessary orders within 3 months.
Final Decision: The petition stands allowed, and the petitioner is entitled to the benefits flowing out of the judgment passed in the case of Tejulal Yadav. The respondents are directed to grant all the consequential benefits positively within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
ORDER
1. The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India being aggrieved by the order dated 03.03.2018 passed by the respondent no.2 declining him to extend the benefit of 2nd kramnonnati after his promotion on the post of Work Assistant in PWD department, Ratlam.
2. Brief facts of the was are that petitioner was appointed on the post of Time Keeper by the Executive Engineer in the PWD Department, Ratlam in the fixed pay of Rs. 75/-. He was promoted on the post of Work Assistant in the pay scale Rs. 70-4-140-5-160 plus D.A. vide order dated 11.11.1976. The petitioner was retired on 31.10.2002. The petitioner has submitted representation to the respondents for extending him the benefit of 2nd Kramonnati for working continuously on the promotional post of Work Assistant for more than 12 years and the said representation is pending consideration. Hence, the present petition is preferred.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner has completed 12 years of service on the post of Work Assistant and, therefore, he is entitled for 2nd Krammonati in the light o the judgment passed by this Court in the case of Tejulal Yadav Vs. State of M.P. reported in 2010 MPLSR 40. Similarly situated work charge employee and drivers have also been granted the benefit of Krammonati but time keeper has been denied the said benefit which is discriminatory and the same is against Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Hence, petition filed by the petitioner may be allowed and respondents be directed to extend him the benefit of 2nd Krammnonati in the light of judgment passed in the case of Tejulal Yadav (supra)
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/State submitted that the petitioner is claiming the benefit of 2nd Krammnonati after his promotion on the post of Work Assistant in PWD, Ratlam. He got retired on 31.10.2002 and preferred the petition in the year 2018 i.e. after 16 years of his retirement. Therefore, the petition is hopelessly barred by limitation and deserves to be dismissed on the ground of limitation. Moreso, he was initially appointed on daily wage in the year 1961 and was taken in work charge and contingency establishment on 11.11.1976 as Work Charge Time Keeper. At that particular point of time, there was no policy of granting krammonati to the work charge and contingency establishment employees. Since, the petitioner was retired in the year 2002, he has no right to claim the said benefit after 16 years of his retirement. Even the circular dated 21.09.2016 is prospective in nature and, therefore, it will not be applicable to the case in hand Hence, the petition deserves to be dismissed.
5. Heard, learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. This Court, in case of Tejulal Yadav (supra) in paragraph 4 to 12 has dealt with the same controversy, which reads as under:
''Learned counsel for the petitioner placing reliance on the judgment rendered by the Bench of this Court in Writ Petition (S) No.1070/2003, K.L Asre v/s State, decided on 07.11.2005, submits that when the work charged establishment Drivers and the Time Keepers in the Public Works Department are held entitled for promotion under the aforesaid scheme, the petitioner, who is a contingency paid employee, is also entitled to the same benefits.
''5. In case of K.L. Asre (supra), the benefit of time bound promotion is extended to the employees of Work Charge Establishment in the Public Works Department and it is so held by the learned Judge in paragraph no.5 of the aforesaid judgment, which ready as under:
''On bare perusal of Annexure P/7 it is gathered that the respondents are giving promotion under the Time Bound Promotion Scheme to the Drivers serving under Work charge Establishment. When the promotion under the Time Bound Promotion Scheme is being given to the Drivers of the Work Charge Establishment, then why the petitioner should not be benefited in the same manner. The Supreme Court in the
