IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRANAY VERMA th ON THE 8 OF JULY, 2024 WRIT PETITION No. 12875 of 2024 (BHAWARSINGH Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS)

Appearance:

(SHRI KAMAL KISHORE KAUSHAL- ADVOCATE)

(SHRI BHUWAN DESHMUKH- GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)

ORDER

By this writ petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has prayed for a direction to the respondents to grant him benefit of minimum of regular pay scale alongwith revised pay and other reliefs.

The petitioner has been classified as permanent employee by order dated

20.02.2017 (Annexure P/3) passed by the respondents and his grievance is that he has not been paid minimum of pay scale without increment by the respondents.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon a judgment delivered by the Apex Court in the case of Ram Naresh Rawat Vs. 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 Signature Not Verified Signed by: SOURABH 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 for consideration, in another context, in State of Madhya Pradesh and Others vs. Dilip Singh Patel and Others. That was a case where similarly situated employees, who were classified as 'permanent employees' under the Standing Orders Act, were given minimum of the pay-scale attached to their posts. However, after the implementation of Sixth Pay Commission, benefits thereof were not extended to these employees. High Court held that they would be entitled to have their pay fixed as per the revised scales in accordance with the recommendations of Sixth Pay Commission which were accepted qua regular employees. This Court, though, upheld the orders of the High Court giving them the benefit of revision of pay-scale pertained to Sixth Pay Commission, but at the same time made it clear that they would be entitled to minimum salary and allowances as per the said revised scales and would not be entitled to any increments. It was further held that such increments would be admissible only after regularisation of their services which regularisation was to take place as per the seniority list with due procedure. Following passage from the said judgment, which captures the aforesaid directions, is quoted hereunder:

“We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. It appears that the respondents earlier moved before the Administrative Tribunal, Gwalior by filing original applications such as O.A. No. 648 of 1995, O.A. No. 293 of 1991 etc. In compliance of the orders passed in such original applications, the Chief Engineer, Yamuna Kachhar, Water Resources Signature Not Verified Signed by: SOURABH Department, Gwalior (M.P.)( by orders issued in between April,. 2004 and June, 2004 provided the minimum wages and allowances to the respondents without increment as per the Schedule of the pay scale from the date of the order of the Tribunal. It was further ordered that the regularization of the daily wages employees shall be made as per the seniority list with due procedure and the benefit of increment and other benefits can only be granted after the regularisation as per the Rules. It was ordered that the order of the Court for benefit of minimum wages and allowances shall be ......