PATIRAM PARIHAR Vs. STATE OF M. P.
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
STATE OF M. P.
Click here to view full judgement.
S.A. Dharmadhikari,J. -
(1.) Shri B.P. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri N.S. Tomar, learned Government Advocate for the respondents/State.
1. Heard finally with the consent of both the parties.
(2.) In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is aggrieved by the inaction on part of the respondents in not extending the benefit of Minimum of Pay Scale from the date of his classification but similarly situated employees have been extended the benefit. The action of respondents is clearly illegal, arbitrary, mala-fide and against the law.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that despite being classified as a permanent employee on the post of Meth vide order dated 25/10/2005, the petitioner continued to receive daily wages less than the minimum stage of regular pay-scale without increments till the age of superannuation. The pecuniary entitlement of daily wager after being classified as a permanent employee is no more res integra in view of the decision of the Apex Court in Ram Naresh Rawat Vs. Shri Ashwani Ray & Ors , 2017 3 SCC 436 in which is held thus:-
"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 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 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. Suryanarayan & Ors.9 ).
28. These contempt petitions are, accordingly, dismissed."
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.