IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE th ON THE 11 OF JULY, 2023 WRIT PETITION No. 4401 of 2018 BETWEEN:-

HARBHAN SINGH BHADORIA S/O LATE SHRI GOVIND SINGH BHADORIYA, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, OCCUPATION: SERVICE AS AMIN, RESIDENT OF HANUMAN NAGAR, GOLE KA MANDIR, GWALIOR (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....PETITIONER (BY SHRI DEVESH SHARMA - ADVOCATE)

AND

1. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, VALLABH BHAWAN, BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

2. ENGINEER IN CHIEF, WATER RESOURCE DEPARTMENT NARMADA BHAWAN TULSI NAGAR, BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

3. CHIEF ENGINEER, WATER RESOURCE DEPARTMENT, YAMUNA KACHAR CHAMBAL COLONY, THATIPUR GWALIOR (MADHYA PRADESH)

4. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER WATER RESOURCE DEPARTMENT DIVISION GOHAD BHIND (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....RESPONDENTS (SHRI DEEPAK KHOT - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR STATE)

This petition coming on for orders this day, the court passed the following:

ORDER

Signature Not Verified Vide order dated 26.02.2021, the petition disposed of by this Court by observing as under:

" Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. From the perusal of the record and vide Annexure P/3 it is not disputed that the petitioner has been classified w.e.f. 10.10.1989. The aforesaid aspect is not disputed by the respondents in the return. The law with respect to classified employee is settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ram Naresh Rawat (supra)

wherein it is held as under:-

"24. 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 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'.

25. We may mention, at this stage that this aspect has come up for consideration, in another context, in State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Dilip Singh Patel. That was a case where similarly situated employees, who were classified as 'permanent employees' under the Standing Orders Act, were given minimum of the payscale 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 therecommendations 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 Signature Not Verified 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 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 Sched