IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

AT GWALIOR

BEFORE

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE

ON THE 25^th OF JANUARY, 2023

WRIT PETITION No. 1719 of 2023

BETWEEN:-

PARASRAM S/O SHRI DHANI RAM, AGED ABOUT 62

YEARS, OCCUPATION: RETIRED, R/O WARD NO 5, MOU

ROAD, KENCHI KI PULIA, GOHAD, DISTRICT BHIND

(MADHYA PRADESH)

.....PETITIONER

(BY SHRI B.P. SINGH - ADVOCATE)

AND

1.

THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH, THROUGH

PRINCIPAL

SECRETARY,

PUBLIC

WORKS

DEPARTMENT,

VALLABH

BHAWAN,

BHOPAL

(MADHYA PRADESH)

2.

ENGINEER

IN

CHIEF,

PUBLIC

WORKS

DEPARTMENT, 27-28 FIRST FLOOR, NIRMAN

BHAWAN, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL (MADHYA

PRADESH)

3.

CHIEF ENGINEER, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT,

NORTH ZONE, THATIPUR, GWALIOR (MADHYA

PRADESH)

4.

EXECUTIVE

ENGINEER,

PUBLIC

WORKS

DEPARTMENT, DIVISION

GOHAD,

DISTRICT

BHIND (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....RESPONDENTS

(BY SMT. PADMASHRI AGARWAL - PANEL LAWYER)

This petition coming on for admission this day, the court passed the

following:

ORDER

This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed

1

Signed by: ABDUR RAHMAN

Signing time: 26-Jan-23

9:27:23 AM

Signature Not Verified

seeking the following reliefs:-

(i) That, a direction may kindly be given to the respondents

to pay the minimum of the grade pay scale of the post of

Helper to the petitioner from the date of his classification as

held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ram

Naresh Rawat.

(ii) Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit

and proper, may also be given to the petitioner.

Petitioner who happens to be a Helper submit that despite having been

classified as a permanent employee by order dated 19/06/2008 (Annexure P/2),

no benefit of regular pay scale has been extended to him.

It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that identical petitions

have already been disposed of by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court by order

dated 5.9.2018 passed in W.P. No.20650/2018, relevant portion whereof reads

as under:

"The law in regard to the benefits flowing from an

order of classification is now settled in view of the

decision of Apex Court in the case of Ram Naresh

Rawat Vs. Ashwini Ray reported in 2017 (Vol 3)

SCC 436, relevant extract of which is reproduced

below for convenience and ready reference:

4........The precise submission is that once they are

conferred the status of permanent employee by the

court and it is also categorically held that they are

entitled to regular pay attached to the said post, not

only the pay should be fixed in the regular payscale,

the petitioners would also be entitled to the

increments and other emoluments attached to the

said post.

18. Insofar as petitioners before us are concerned

they have been classified as 'permanent'. For this

reason, we advert to the core issue, which would

determine the fate of these cases, viz., whether

thes e employees can be treated as 'regular'

2

Signed by: ABDUR RAHMAN

Signing time: 26-Jan-23

9:27:23 AM

Signature Not Verified

(MILIND RAMESH PHADKE)

JUDGE

employees in view of the aforesaid classification?

In other words, with their classification as

'permanent', do they stand regularized in service?

26. From the aforesaid, it follows that though a

'permanent employee' has right to receive pay in the

graded pay-scale, at the same time, he would be

getting only minimum of the said pay-scale with no

increments. It is only the regularization in service

which would entail grant of increments etc. in the

pay scale.

27. In view of the aforesaid, we do not find any

substance

in

the contentions raised by the

petitioners in these contempt petitions. We are

conscious of the fact that in some cases, on earlier

occasions, the State Government while fixing the

pay scale, granted increments as well. However, if

some persons are given the benefit wrongly, that

cannot form the basis of claiming the same relief. It

is trite that right to equality under Article 14 is not in

negative terms (See Indian Council of Agricultural

Research & Anr. v. T.K. Surya