A.L. Thakur Vs. the State of Mp - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1054250
CourtMadhya Pradesh High Court
Decided OnJun-27-2012
AppellantA.L. Thakur
RespondentThe State of Mp
Excerpt:
1 high court of madhya pradesh principal seat at jabalpur. writ petition no.16054/2003 (o.a.no.5178/2000) a.l.thakur and others.-versus- the state of m.p.and others.and writ petition no.16741/2003 (o.a.no.7551/2000) pratap singh yadav and 13 others.-versus- the state of m.p.and others.present : hon’ble shri justice k.k.trivedi. shri d.k.dixit, learned counsel for the petitioners.shri piyush dharmadhikari, learned govt. advocate for respondents. order (27.6.2012) 1: these two petitions were originally filed as original application before the m.p.administrative tribunal, which have come on transfer to this court after abolition of the tribunal and have been registered as writ petition. since a 2 common claim is made in both the writ petitions, common relief is claimed only on the basis of orders passed by the tribunal in earlier petitions, which have been implemented by the state government, these petitions were heard together and are being decided by this common order. the facts as have been mentioned in writ petition no.16054/2003 (o.a.no.5178/2000) are taken for the purposes of this order. 2: the petitioners.who all were appointed as ‘timekeepers’ have approached the tribunal by way of filing joint original applications claiming that the revision of pay in their cases be rightly done, granting them benefit of pay scale of rs.515-800 with effect from 1.4.1982, the benefit of pay scale of rs.950-1530 with effect from 1.1.1986 and the benefit of pay scale of rs.3050-4590 with effect from 1.1.1996 as was ordered by the tribunal in various cases, treating them at par with the employees working in the aforesaid pay scale. the common claim made by the petitioners was that they were appointed as ‘timekeeper’ in the establishment of the respondents, were discharging the same duties and functions as were discharged by many other employees. the nomenclature of the post of ‘timekeeper’ was changed to be ‘field assistant’ by orders of the state government. however, at the time of giving the benefit of pay scale, right pay scales were not prescribed for the persons like petitioners and, therefore, the original applications were filed before the m.p.administrative tribunal. one such original application being o.a.no.126/99 was filed which came up for hearing before the tribunal and, ultimately, was decided in terms of the decision rendered by the tribunal in various cases such as t.a.no.993/1988 decided on 6.11.1998 by gwalior bench. the tribunal came to hold that since such decision of the gwalior bench were affirmed and the orders were issued by the state government in respect of those persons, similar benefits as 3 were granted in the case of laxmi narayan upadhyay versus state of m.p.and others.would be applicable to the case of the petitioners also. however, in case of certain persons those who have approached the tribunal, the benefit of revised pay scale was granted in appropriate manner, but the said benefit was not extended to the petitioners.therefore, they were required to file the original application. the orders so passed by the tribunal have been placed on record as annx.a/3 and a/ 4 and the consequential orders issued by the state government are placed on record as annx.a/5 and a/7. in the order dated 11.7.1999 annx.a/7, the state government very categorically directed that the orders passed by the tribunal be complied with. however, in the cases of the present petitioners.such orders were not issued, therefore, the joint petitions were filed. 3: in response to the notice issued by the tribunal, the state government has filed a return and has tried to justify its stand saying that the recommendation for grant of pay scale by the pay commission is accepted by the state government and since the commission has recommended different pay scales for the persons like petitioners.taking into consideration their job responsibilities, the petitioners were not entitled to the relief claimed in the petition. it is tried to canvass that a different pay scale has been made available for the persons like petitioners since they were working in the work charged contingency establishment and they were not to be treated at par with those who were granted a higher pay scale. it is contended that expert committee like pay commission is required to take into account various facts such as the nature of the job, the duties assigned to each and every post, the gravity of the responsibilities put on such persons holding the post and then only to prescribe the pay scale. since this has been done in rightful manner, merely because in 4 some of the cases, the orders have been passed, it cannot be said that the petitioners are also entitled to the similar benefit. it is, thus, tried to canvass that the entire claim of the petitioners based on certain decisions of the tribunal is misconceived and the petitions are liable to be dismissed. 4: a rejoinder is filed by the petitioners meeting out the allegations made in the return and it has been pointed out that such issues have been settled long back. even the appeal before the apex court were dismissed and, therefore, the orders were issued giving benefit of the orders of the tribunal by the state government. however, the said order was restricted only with respect to those who have approached the tribunal as the list of those cases was mentioned in the order passed by the state government vide annx.a/7. it is pointed out that in case of data assistant, progress man, store attendant etc., the recommendations were made and it was said that they should be given a proper pay scale. in the very same memo, it was said that even the data assistants are discharging the duties like timekeeper. it is pointed out that in respect of persons like petitioners.earlier the recommendations were made that they be treated as working in the executive post and be granted a benefit of promotion on the post of sub engineer. it was pointed out that the work of sub engineers and their subordinate like timekeeper are much or less same. further placing certain documents on record, it is contended that in fact persons like petitioners working as timekeeper or field assistant were made to work under the junior engineer, helping him in discharge of his duties. therefore, the petitioners were virtually discharging the technical job. this being so, it is contended that insistance of the respondents that recommendations were not made in respect of persons like petitioners giving them any higher pay scale by the pay commission and, therefore, they would not be 5 entitled to the said benefit, specially when such a matter has already been adjudicated by the tribunal and the said order is already affirmed, has already been implemented by the state, is not justified and as such, the petitioners are entitled to the relief claimed. 5: after hearing the learned counsel for the parties at length and perusal of the record, this court is of the opinion that there is no scope available to the respondent state to avoid giving the benefit of the pay scale as claimed by the petitioners specially when such issue has already attained finality on adjudication by the tribunal and on account of accepting the same by the state government. the nomenclature of the post of the ‘timekeeper’ was changed sometimes in the year 1996 prior to it, it was known as timekeeper. not it is being known as ‘field assistant’. the claim of timekeeper, field assistant, data processor etc., were considered in the case of laxmi narayan (supra) and was decided by the tribunal by a detailed order as contained in annx.a/4. the entire claim was considered by the tribunal and it was categorically held in paragraph 6 that the persons like petitioners were entitled to the pay scale of rs.515-800. if such a finding was accepted by the respondent state in case of laxmi narayan (supra) and in terms of the said decision, the order was issued way back in the year 1999 by deciding, not to file any appeal against such orders.it is not open to the state not to say that such benefit is not available to the petitioners.on the other hand, it was not open to the state to say that such a finding is not acceptable by them and that the matter was required to be referred to any high power committee or a pay commission or to any expert body for obtaining any recommendation for grant of such benefit. once a decision is rendered taking into account several facts by the authorities of law including the tribunal, and the said order is 6 accepted by the state government, it cannot be said that the said order would not be applicable in case of similarly situated persons. the respondent state has utterly failed to demonstrate that persons like petitioners in these two petitions are not identically placed to those of laxmi narayan (supra) and others.in view of this, the petitioners would also be entitled to the very same benefits which the respondents have extended to persons who have approached the tribunal by way of filing different writ petitions as have been referred in annx.a/7. 6: in view of the aforesaid, these petitions are allowed. the respondents are commanded to grant the benefit of play scale of rs.515-800 with effect from 1.4.1982, the benefit of pay scale of rs.950-1530 with effect from 1.1.1986 and the benefit of pay scale of rs.3050-4590 with effect from 1.1.1996 to the petitioners and to revise and refix their salary, calculate the entire arrears of salary and to pay the said amount to the petitioners within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order passed today. 7: with the aforesaid, the writ petitions stand allowed. there shall be no order as to costs. (k.k.trivedi) judge /06/2012 7 high court of madhya pradesh principal seat at jabalpur writ petition no.16054/2003 (o.a.no.5178/2000) a.l.thakur and others.-versus- the state of m.p.and others.and writ petition no.16741/2003 (o.a.no.7551/2000) pratap singh yadav and 13 others.-versus- the state of m.p.and others.order post it for /6/2012 (k. k.trivedi) judge /06/2012 8
Judgment:

1 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL SEAT AT JABALPUR.

Writ Petition No.16054/2003 (O.A.No.5178/2000) A.L.Thakur and otheRs.-Versus- The State of M.P.and otheRs.And Writ Petition No.16741/2003 (O.A.No.7551/2000) Pratap Singh Yadav and 13 otheRs.-Versus- The State of M.P.and otheRs.PRESENT : Hon’ble Shri Justice K.K.Trivedi.

Shri D.K.Dixit, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri Piyush Dharmadhikari, learned Govt.

Advocate for respondents.

ORDER

(27.6.2012) 1: These two petitions were originally filed as Original Application before the M.P.Administrative Tribunal, which have come on transfer to this Court after abolition of the Tribunal and have been registered as writ petition.

Since a 2 common claim is made in both the writ petitions, common relief is claimed only on the basis of orders passed by the Tribunal in earlier petitions, which have been implemented by the State Government, these petitions were heard together and are being decided by this common order.

The facts as have been mentioned in Writ Petition No.16054/2003 (O.A.No.5178/2000) are taken for the purposes of this order.

2: The petitioneRs.who all were appointed as ‘Timekeepers’ have approached the Tribunal by way of filing joint Original Applications claiming that the revision of pay in their cases be rightly done, granting them benefit of pay scale of Rs.515-800 with effect from 1.4.1982, the benefit of pay scale of Rs.950-1530 with effect from 1.1.1986 and the benefit of pay scale of Rs.3050-4590 with effect from 1.1.1996 as was ordered by the Tribunal in various cases, treating them at par with the employees working in the aforesaid pay scale.

The common claim made by the petitioners was that they were appointed as ‘Timekeeper’ in the establishment of the respondents, were discharging the same duties and functions as were discharged by many other employees.

The nomenclature of the post of ‘Timekeeper’ was changed to be ‘Field Assistant’ by orders of the State Government.

However, at the time of giving the benefit of pay scale, right pay scales were not prescribed for the persons like petitioners and, therefore, the Original Applications were filed before the M.P.Administrative Tribunal.

One such Original Application being O.A.No.126/99 was filed which came up for hearing before the Tribunal and, ultimately, was decided in terms of the decision rendered by the Tribunal in various cases such as T.A.No.993/1988 decided on 6.11.1998 by Gwalior Bench.

The Tribunal came to hold that since such decision of the Gwalior Bench were affirmed and the orders were issued by the State Government in respect of those persons, similar benefits as 3 were granted in the case of Laxmi Narayan Upadhyay versus State of M.P.and otheRs.would be applicable to the case of the petitioners also.

However, in case of certain persons those who have approached the Tribunal, the benefit of revised pay scale was granted in appropriate manner, but the said benefit was not extended to the petitioneRs.therefore, they were required to file the Original Application.

The orders so passed by the Tribunal have been placed on record as Annx.A/3 and A/ 4 and the consequential orders issued by the State Government are placed on record as Annx.A/5 and A/7.

In the order dated 11.7.1999 Annx.A/7, the State Government very categorically directed that the orders passed by the Tribunal be complied with.

However, in the cases of the present petitioneRs.such orders were not issued, therefore, the joint petitions were filed.

3: In response to the notice issued by the Tribunal, the State Government has filed a return and has tried to justify its stand saying that the recommendation for grant of pay scale by the Pay Commission is accepted by the State Government and since the Commission has recommended different pay scales for the persons like petitioneRs.taking into consideration their job responsibilities, the petitioners were not entitled to the relief claimed in the petition.

It is tried to canvass that a different pay scale has been made available for the persons like petitioners since they were working in the work charged contingency establishment and they were not to be treated at par with those who were granted a higher pay scale.

It is contended that Expert Committee like Pay Commission is required to take into account various facts such as the nature of the job, the duties assigned to each and every post, the gravity of the responsibilities put on such persons holding the post and then only to prescribe the pay scale.

Since this has been done in rightful manner, merely because in 4 some of the cases, the orders have been passed, it cannot be said that the petitioners are also entitled to the similar benefit.

It is, thus, tried to canvass that the entire claim of the petitioners based on certain decisions of the Tribunal is misconceived and the petitions are liable to be dismissed.

4: A rejoinder is filed by the petitioners meeting out the allegations made in the return and it has been pointed out that such issues have been settled long back.

Even the appeal before the Apex Court were dismissed and, therefore, the orders were issued giving benefit of the orders of the Tribunal by the State Government.

However, the said order was restricted only with respect to those who have approached the Tribunal as the list of those cases was mentioned in the order passed by the State Government vide Annx.A/7.

It is pointed out that in case of Data Assistant, Progress Man, Store Attendant etc., the recommendations were made and it was said that they should be given a proper pay scale.

In the very same memo, it was said that even the Data Assistants are discharging the duties like Timekeeper.

It is pointed out that in respect of persons like petitioneRs.earlier the recommendations were made that they be treated as working in the executive post and be granted a benefit of promotion on the post of Sub Engineer.

It was pointed out that the work of Sub Engineers and their subordinate like Timekeeper are much or less same.

Further placing certain documents on record, it is contended that in fact persons like petitioners working as Timekeeper or Field Assistant were made to work under the Junior Engineer, helping him in discharge of his duties.

Therefore, the petitioners were virtually discharging the technical job.

This being so, it is contended that insistance of the respondents that recommendations were not made in respect of persons like petitioners giving them any higher pay scale by the Pay Commission and, therefore, they would not be 5 entitled to the said benefit, specially when such a matter has already been adjudicated by the Tribunal and the said order is already affirmed, has already been implemented by the State, is not justified and as such, the petitioners are entitled to the relief claimed.

5: After hearing the learned counsel for the parties at length and perusal of the record, this Court is of the opinion that there is no scope available to the respondent State to avoid giving the benefit of the pay scale as claimed by the petitioners specially when such issue has already attained finality on adjudication by the Tribunal and on account of accepting the same by the State Government.

The nomenclature of the post of the ‘Timekeeper’ was changed sometimes in the year 1996 prior to it, it was known as Timekeeper.

not it is being known as ‘Field Assistant’.

The claim of Timekeeper, Field Assistant, Data Processor etc., were considered in the case of Laxmi Narayan (supra) and was decided by the Tribunal by a detailed order as contained in Annx.A/4.

The entire claim was considered by the Tribunal and it was categorically held in paragraph 6 that the persons like petitioners were entitled to the pay scale of RS.515-800.

If such a finding was accepted by the respondent State in case of Laxmi Narayan (supra) and in terms of the said decision, the order was issued way back in the year 1999 by deciding, not to file any appeal against such ordeRs.it is not open to the State not to say that such benefit is not available to the petitioneRs.On the other hand, it was not open to the State to say that such a finding is not acceptable by them and that the matter was required to be referred to any High Power Committee or a Pay Commission or to any Expert body for obtaining any recommendation for grant of such benefit.

Once a decision is rendered taking into account several facts by the authorities of law including the Tribunal, and the said order is 6 accepted by the State Government, it cannot be said that the said order would not be applicable in case of similarly situated persons.

The respondent State has utterly failed to demonstrate that persons like petitioners in these two petitions are not identically placed to those of Laxmi Narayan (supra) and otheRs.In view of this, the petitioners would also be entitled to the very same benefits which the respondents have extended to persons who have approached the Tribunal by way of filing different writ petitions as have been referred in Annx.A/7.

6: In view of the aforesaid, these petitions are allowed.

The respondents are commanded to grant the benefit of play scale of Rs.515-800 with effect from 1.4.1982, the benefit of pay scale of Rs.950-1530 with effect from 1.1.1986 and the benefit of pay scale of Rs.3050-4590 with effect from 1.1.1996 to the petitioners and to revise and refix their salary, calculate the entire arrears of salary and to pay the said amount to the petitioners within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order passed today.

7: With the aforesaid, the writ petitions stand allowed.

There shall be no order as to costs.

(K.K.Trivedi) Judge /06/2012 7 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL SEAT AT JABALPUR Writ Petition No.16054/2003 (O.A.No.5178/2000) A.L.Thakur and otheRs.-Versus- The State of M.P.and otheRs.And Writ Petition No.16741/2003 (O.A.No.7551/2000) Pratap Singh Yadav and 13 otheRs.-Versus- The State of M.P.and otheRs.ORDER

Post it for /6/2012 (K.

K.Trivedi) Judge /06/2012 8