Ajay Pratap Singh Tomar vs State Of M.P

Writ jurisdiction of this court u/Art. 226 of the Constitution is invoked claiming the following reliefs:-

"(i) That, a direction may kindly be given to the respondents to pay the salary as per scale of Sub Engineer to the petitioner from the date of his classification as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ram Naresh Rawat.

(ii) Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper, may also be given to the petitioner."

The basic grievance of the petitioner is that despite being classified as a permanent employee vide order dated 7/1/2005, P/1, the petitioner still continues to receive daily wages which is less than the minimum stage of regular pay-scale without increments.

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. reported in (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 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.

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?"

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 regularisation in service which would entail grant of increments etc. in the payscale.

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. ).

These contempt petitions are, accordingly, dismissed ."

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

Accordingly, 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 two months from the date of passing of this order.

This order shall become outios or ineffective if the respondents have cancelled order of classification passed in favour of petitioner.

With the aforesaid direction, the present petition stands disposed of.

No cost.