THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH (KESHARI KEWAT Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & Ors.)

Gwalior, Dated:01/02/2021 Shri Brij Mohan Patel, learned counsel for the petitioner.

Shri Sanjay Kumar Sharma, learned Government Advocate for the State.

Heard through video conferencing.

1. The basic grievance of the petitioner is that despite being classified as a permanent employee vide order Annxure P/1 dated 02.06.2017, the petitioner still continues to receive daily wages which is less than the minimum stage of regular pay-scale without increments.

1.2 The pecuniary entitlement of daily wager after being classified as permanent employee is no more res integra in view of the decision of the Apex Court in Ram Naresh Rawat Vs. Sri Ashwani Ray &

Ors. reportedin (2017) 3 SCC 436 in which it is held thus:-

“4................The precise submission is that once they are conferred the status of permanent employee by thecourt 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 pay-scale,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 these 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 begetting 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. Suryanarayan & Ors.9 ).

28. These contempt petitions are, accordingly, dismissed .”

2. In view of above, the petitioner on being classified as a permanent employee is entitled to minimum of the regular pay-scale without increments.

3. Accordingly, the respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner in terms of law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Ram Naresh Rawat (supra) and grant benefit if not already granted as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of (2)

two months from the date of passing of this order.

4. This order shall become otios or ineffective if the respondents have canceled the order of classification passed in favour of petitioner.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner does not dispute that petitioner has been declared as Sthai Karmi under 2016 Sathai Karmi Scheme, but the said fact is not disclosed in the petition in express terms. In this view of the matter, any benefit granted to the petitioner under the Sthai Karmi scheme would be adjusted against the benefit flowing out of the verdict of Apex Court in the case of Ram Naresh Rawat (Supra). To make things more clear, it is directed that in case, the benefit flowing from the verdict of Ram Naresh Rawat (supra) is more beneficial to petitioner than the benefit already received under Sthai Karmi Scheme, 2016, then the difference shall be paid to the petitioner. Whereas in case, the benefit under Sthai Karmi Scheme, 2016 received by the petitioner is more beneficial than the benefit flowing from verdict of Ram Naresh Rawat (supra), then no benefit would be due to the pet