Rajalbai Yadav vs The State of Madhya Pradesh

Prakash Shrivastava, J.—Heard finally with consent.

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner claiming the krammonati pay scale of Rs. 750-945 and corresponding pay scale revised from time to time w.e.f. 22/12/09 i.e. the date of entitlement of petitioner.

When the matter is taken up today, learned counsel for petitioner submits that the issue involved in the matter is already decided by the Division Bench in the matter of State of MP and others Vs. Tejulal Yadav passed in writ appeal No. 966/2009 decided on 27/10/09. He has prayed for a similar direction in the present case also.

Counsel for State has not disputed this aspect of the matter.

In the matter of Tejulal Yadav (supra), the Division Bench has held as under:-

"It is not in dispute that decision of K.L. Asre has been implemented and has not been assailed. Other persons have also been given benefit. Following reasons have been given in paragraph 5, 6 and 7 by learned Single Judge:-

"5. In case of K.L. Asre (supra), the benefit of time bound promotion is extended to the employees of Work Charge Establishment in the Public Works Department and it is so held by the learned Judge in paragraph no.5 of the aforesaid judgment, which ready as under:

"On bare perusal of Annexure P/7 it is gathered that the respondents are giving promotion under the Time Bound Promotion Scheme to the Drivers serving under Work charge Establishment. When the promotion under the Time Bound Promotion Scheme is being given to the Drivers of the Work Charge Establishment, then why the petitioner should not be benefited in the same manner. The Supreme Court in the case of Raghunath Prasad Singh Vs. Secretary, Home (Police) Department, Government of Bihar and Others, has held as under:-

"4. Before we part with the appeal, we would like to take notice of another aspect. In course of hearing of the appeal, to a query made by us, learned counsel for the appellant indicate the reason as to why the appellant was anxious to switch over to the general cadre. He relied upon two or three communications which are a, part of the record where it has been indicate that there is no promotional opportunity available in the wireless organisation. Reasonable promotional opportunities should be available in every wing of public service. That generates efficiency in service and fosters the appropriate attitude to grow for achieving excellence in service. In the absence of promotional prospects, the service is bound to degenerate and stagnation kills the desire to serve properly. We would, therefore, direct the State of Bihar to provide at least two promotional opportunities to the officers of the State Police in the wireless organisation within six months from today by appropriate amendments of Rules. In case the State of Bihar fails to comply, with this direction, it should, within two months thereafter, give a fresh opportunity to personnel in the Police wireless organisation to exercise option to revert to the general cadre and that benefit should be extended to everyone in the wireless organisation."

The same principle has been reiterated in the case of Dr. Ms. O.Z. Hussain Vs. Union of India and others, . This Court in the case of Smt. Kamla Devi Tiwari Vs. The State of M.P. and another (W.P. No. 9368/2003) decided on 05/01/2005 has held that according to the decision of Raghunath Prasad Singh (Supra) the employees are entitled for promotion and the respondents were directed to extend the said benefit in terms of the decision of Supreme Court in Raghunath Prasad Singh (Supra).

Since the Time Bound Promotion scheme is applicable to the Drivers serving under the Work Charge Establishment the view of this Court is that the same is also applicable to the petitioner who was serving on the post of Time Keeper and was retired from the said post."

(Emphasis supplied)

Apart from the above, it is seen that the petitioner is working in the Polytechnic College and is said to be a contingency paid employee. Under the M.P. Education Department (Technical Branch) Contingency Paid Employees Recruitment and Conditions of Service Rules, 1978 a contingency paid employee is defined under Rule 2(b) to mean a person employed for full time in an office or establishment and who is paid on monthly basis and whose pay is charged to "Office Contingencies" but it excludes such of the employees who are employed for certain periods only in the year. In the aforesaid Rules of 1978, the categorization of employees in done under Rule-6 and the employees are classified into two categories i.e. permanent and temporary. Under Sub-rule 2 of Rule-6, it is provided that on completion of 15 years of continuous service the contingency paid employees shall be eligible for attaining the status of permanent work charged or contingency paid employees. The similar provisions are made in the M.P. (Work Charged and Contingency Paid Employees) Pension Rules, 1979 wherein the permanent employee is defined under Rule 2(c) to mean a contingency paid employee or a work charged employee who has completed 15 years of service or more on or after 1st January, 1974.

The complete reading of these Rules indicates that a contingency paid employee attaining the permanent status and a work charged employee attaining the permanent status are treated to be similar in all respects for the purpose of granting them pension and revision of pay scales under the M.P. Work Charged and Contingency Paid Employees Revision of Pay Rules, 1990 and under the M.P. (Work Charged and Contingency Paid Employees) Pension Rules, 1979."

We find the order passed by learned Single Bench to be based on due consideration of Rules. Counsel for State was unable to point out any illegality in the order. We do not find any ground so as to make interference in writ appeal in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case.

The writ appeal is dismissed."

Keeping in view the aforesaid submission made by counsel for petitioner, the writ petition is disposed of by directing respondents no. 2 & 3 to consider the case of petitioner in the light of the judgment in the matter of Tejulal Yadav (supra). If the petitioner is found to be similarly situated person, then necessary benefit may be extended to the petitioner without any delay. Any adverse order will be a reasoned speaking order. Let this exercise be completed by respondents No. 2 & 3 within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

C.C. as per rules.