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. 2120 of 2023

BETWEEN:-

BRAJLAL S/O LATE SHRI FOSU, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,

OCCUPATION:

LABOUR

SAHISPURA,

DHIMAR

MOHALLA, DISTRICT SHIVPURI (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....PETITIONER

(BY SHRI DEVESH SHARMA - ADVOCATE)

AND

1.

THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL

SECRETARY, PWD, 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 ZONES THATIPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)

4.

SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, PUBLIC WORKS

D EPARTM EN T MANDAL

GUNA

(MADHYA

PRADESH)

5.

EXECUTIVE

ENGINEER,

PUBLIC

WORKS

DEPARTMENT SAMBHAG SHIVPURI (MADHYA

PRADESH)

.....RESPONDENTS

(BY SHRI NITIN GOYAL - PANEL LAWYER)

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

following:

ORDER

1

Signed by: ABDUR RAHMAN

Signing time: 26-Jan-23

9:27:23 AM

Signature Not Verified

Present petition is preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India

seeking following reliefs:-

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

respondents to give the service benefit and

minimum pay scale of the post of the permanent

classified

Labour

from

the

date

of

his

classification as permanent employee to the

petitioner. And pay the arrears of salary on

fixation

of pay along with all consequence

benefits with interest from the date of his

classification.

(ii) That, the respondents may further be directed

to treat the petitioner at par with their similarly

placed

co-employees

with

seniority

and

consequential benefits on the post of Labour

from the date of his Classification.

(iii) That, Any other relief, which this Hon'ble

Court may deem fit and proper may also be given

to the petitioner along with costs."

Petitioner who happens to be a Sthai Karmi Labour submits that despite

having been classified as a permanent employee by order dated 04/12/2014, 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

2

Signed by: ABDUR RAHMAN

Signing time: 26-Jan-23

9:27:23 AM

Signature Not Verified

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'

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,