Back
2023 Supreme(MP) 1029
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR
Sujoy Paul, J.
Santosh Gandhi and another – Petitioners
Versus
State of M. P. and others – Respondents
W. P. No. 3669 of 2016
Decided On : 04-09-2023
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Sanjay K. Agrawal
For the Respondent: Ritwik Parashar
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Challenge to the order denying revised pay scale - Petitioners promoted to DIG with revised pay scale - Arguments against the impugned decision based on administrative protocol and validity of recruitment rules - Court found the order based on incorrect legal reasoning and factually incorrect claims - The law does not permit administrative officers to question the validity of duly published statutory rules. (Paras 3-16)
(B) Administrative Law - The process of rule making is not subject to question by administrative officers; courts must honor published rules unless constitutional validity is challenged. (Paras 15-16)
Facts of the case:
The petitioners challenged an order denying a revised pay scale based on alleged procedural flaws which were statistically incorrect.
Findings of Court:
The impugned order was set aside due to incorrect grounds and the petitioners were entitled to the benefits.
Issues: Whether the order was justified based on rules and amendments.
Ratio Decidendi: The order was invalid as the grounds for denial were found to be factually and legally erroneous.
Result: Writ petition allowed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17) |
ORDER :
Sujoy Paul, J.
Heard.
2. In this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the challenge is mounted to the order dated 4-2-2016 (Annexure P/6) whereby respondent No. 3 opined that the petitioners were not entitled to get the revised pay scale of Rs. 37400-67000/- Rs. 8700/- G. P. Consequently, the direction was issued to recover the said amount by informing the Directorate.
3. Shri Sanjay K. Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners were initially appointed on the post of Joint Inspector General of Registration in the Commercial Tax Department. The petitioners were promoted as Deputy Inspector General (DIG) of Registration in the scale of Rs. 3000- 4500/- (revised as Rs. 15600-39100/- Rs. 6600/- G. P. as per 6th pay commission).
4. Pursuant to recommendations of Brahma Swaroop Committee, the pay scale of DIG was revised to Rs. 3700-5000/- ( Rs. 15600-39100/- Rs. 7600/- G. P.).
5. Shri Sanjay K. Agrawal submits that relevant Recruitment Rules namely M. P. Registration and Stamp Executive (Gazetted) Service Recruitment Rules, 2007 (Recruitment Rules) were amended and in Scheduled-I the pay scale of Joint Inspector General of Registration was revised as Rs. 12000-375- 16500/-. Emphasis is laid on order of Commercial Tax Department dated 5-11-2012 (Annexure P/4) which shows that the pay scale of Rs. 15600-39100/- Rs. 7600/- G. P. was revised as Rs. 37400-67000/- Rs. 8700/- G. P. pursuant to an approval given by the Finance Department on 17-10-2012.
6. The said Recruitment Rules were again amended in consonance with order date 5-11-2012 by an amendment published in M. P. Gazette on 24-12-2013 (Annexure P/5). The pay scale of Joint Inspector General of Registration stood revised as Rs. 37400-67000/- Rs. 8700/- G. P.
7. Shri Sanjay K. Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners were promoted pursuant to the recommendation of Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) and accordingly, received the revised pay-scale of Rs. 37400-67000 8700 (GP). The respondent No. 3 passed the impugned order dated 4-2-2016 (Annexure P/6) whereby opined that for three reasons, the grant of said pay scale is bad in law, namely (i) the Department granted the said pay scale without recommendation of Council of Ministers; (ii) the Recruitment Rules have not been amended; and (iii) DPC has not recommended in favour of said employees.
8. By taking this Court to the Rules of Business, Government of Madhya Pradesh, it is submitted that as per said Rules, it was not obligatory for the Department to place the matter before the Council of Ministers because necessary requirement of Rule 7 of Part-I and Rule (xiv) of Part-II was not fulfilled. Secondly, the Recruitment Rules were indeed amended and petitioners were given the benefit after the recommendations of DPC which is evident from the proceedings filed along with the return (Annexure R/2). Thus, all the three reasons assigned in the order are bad in law.
9. Shri Ritwik Parashar, learned Government Advocate opposed the prayer on the basis of reply filed.
10. Parties confined their arguments to the extent indicated above.
11. I have heard the parties at length and perused the record.
12. A careful reading of impugned order dated 4-2-2016 shows that the argument of Shri Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioners has substance and the impugned order is based on three reasons.
13. Firstly, a conjoint reading of Rule 7 of Part-I of the said Rules leaves no room for any doubt that only such matters are required to be brought before the Council of Ministers which contained special directions of (i) the Chief Minister; (ii) the Minister-in-charge of the case with the consent of the Chief Minister, or (iii) the Governor under Article 167(c). Likewise, Rule (xiv) of Part- II shows that service rules and their amendments are required to be placed before the Council when
