Shripad Joshi S/o Late Shri Shankar Rao Joshi vs State of MP & Ors

The petitioner before this Court is a retired employee having retired from the post of Draughtsman, Collectorate, Damoh . He is aggrieved by the order dated 18.7.1996 (Annexure P/7) passed by the respondent No.2/ Director of Geology & Mining, Bhopal wherein it is mentioned that the pay-scale of the petitioner has not been done properly and guidance is required from the Government. As a result, a note was entered in the service book of the petitioner that till the decision is received from the Government, there shall be no pay fixation in respect of the petitioner''s case. The petitioner has also challenged the order dated 10.1.2005 (Annexure P/15) issued by the respondent No.1/Secretary, Mineral Resources Department whereby the representation of the petitioner has been rejected and the Collector, Damoh has been directed to fix the pay on the basis of his initial scale of Rs.90/- on the post of Assistant Draughtsman at the time of his initial appointment.

In brief the facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Draughtsman by the Director of Geology & Mining vide order dated 24.9.1963 on a fixed pay of Rs.90/- per month, he was confirmed on 1.5.1992. The case of the petitioner is that since there was anomaly in the pay scale of the Draughtsmen working in various departments, hence the matter was taken up by the State Government and a decision was arrived at that the pay- scale of all the Draughtsmen working in various departments shall be Rs.1600-2720 w.e.f. 1.7.1989 and Rs.2000-2900 w.e.f. 26.8.1989. Such pay scale was ordered to be given in view of the fact that all the Draughtsmen in the Engineering departments i.e. Public Works Department, Water Resources Department, Public Health Engineering Department etc. are receiving the said scale and in order to remove such anomaly this decision was taken on 4.3.1990 and a consequential circular was issued on 17.12.1990. On 29.1.1991 vide separate circular the anomalies were removed by the Government by making one category of Draughtsmen in all the departments with same pay-scale.

The petitioner''s grievance is that despite such orders to remove the anomaly in pay the petitioner was discriminated and the benefit of circular was not extended to him. The petitioner''s pay was fixed at Rs.2000/- in the pay-scale of Rs.2000-2900 and his initial pay was fixed at Rs.1600-2720 as on 1.7.1989. Subsequently, the Collector, Damoh vide his letter dated 18.3.1996 and 22.4.1996 accepted the scale of Rs.1400-2640 and fixed the pay of the petitioner in the scale of Rs.1600-2720 w.e.f. 1.7.1989 and in the scale of Rs.2000-2900 w.e.f. 26.8.1989. This pay fixation statement was also approved by the Joint Director of Treasuries & Accounts and Pension, Sagar on 4.7.1996 and accordingly pay fixation was done on 4.7.1996. It is only after this pay fixation was made that the impugned order dated 18.7.1996 was passed wherein it was mentioned that the pay fixation of the petitioner has been wrongly made and guidance on the question whether the revised pay scales be given to the petitioner or not has been sought from the Government. As a result, a note was entered in the service book of the petitioner that till the decision is received from the Government, there shall be no pay fixation in respect of the petitioner''s case.

Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 18.7.1996, the petitioner filed Original Application No.3577/1997 before the State Administrative Tribunal, Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur. The aforesaid original application, on abolition of the State Administrative Tribunal came to be transferred to this Court and was registered as W.P. No.12083/2003. The aforesaid petition was disposed of with a direction to decide the petitioner''s representation and in pursuance of the Court order dated 11.11.2003, the petitioner made a representation on 27.11.2003 but before it could be decided, the petitioner on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.8.2000 retired from the post. After the contempt proceedings were initiated, finally the petitioner''s representation was decided and the claim of the petitioner was rejected vide order dated 10.1.2005 (Annexure P/15) issued by the respondent No.1 and it was communicated to the petitioner on 28.9.2005. It is submitted by the petitioner that once a decision was

already taken regarding the relaxation in the qualification of the petitioner to bring him at par with those working in other departments then it was not open for the respondents to re-open the case. It is further submitted that it is the settled law that once the pay-scale has been done by the Collector and which is also approved by the Directorate of Treasuries, Accounts & Pension, the same cannot be withdrawn. On the aforementioned facts, the petitioner has raised only one ground in the petition which reads thus :

"A. For that in the appointment order of the petitioner it is no where mentioned that he is being appointed on the post of draughtsman in the Collectorate cadre.

Such distinction is only the imagination of the respondents and nothing more.

However, the distinction between the categories of draughtsmen working in various departments as stated by the respondents belongs to the period prior to the issuance of circulars dated 4.3.90 and 17.12.90 whereby the anomaly in respect of the post of draughtsmen with regard to their qualification and scale has been removed. And in the notification of the Finance Department dated 29th January, 1991 (Annexure P-4-A) it has been directed that a common cadre should be given to all the draughtsmen working in various departments so as to bring uniformity and the practice of creating various categories of draughtsmen with regard to their qualification and pay-scale should be avoided."

The only contention of the petitioner is that when it was directed that a common cadre should be given to all the draughtsmen working in various departments so as to bring the uniformity then there was no reason to treat the petitioner''s case on different footing.

In the return, the respondents'' contention is that the petitioner has wrongly mentioned that he is a Draughtsman and, in fact, as per the seniority list filed along with the return as Annexure R/5 showing the position as on 1.4.1997, 1.4.1998, 1.4.1999 and 1.4.2000, the petitioner was included in the list of Assistant Draughtsman only. It is further submitted that the aforesaid list Annexure R/5 was not deliberately filed along with Annexure P/17 which is a list of seniority and it is alleged that the petitioner has not filed a copy of the seniority list wherein it is mentioned that it relates to Assistant Draughtsman designated as such under the Revision of Pay Rules, 1983. It is further submitted that the contention of the petitioner that the benefit of pay revision once extended cannot be withdrawn is untenable as the petitioner had not started receiving benefit of pay-fixation as ordered by the Collector and was also disapproved by the Director on 18.7.1996. In the circumstances, it is submitted that the petition has no force and is liable to be dismissed.

In the rejoinder, it is submitted that the respondents have wrongly treated the petitioner as Assistant Draughtsman despite the fact that his appointment was on the post of Draughtsman. It is further submitted that the respondents have wrongly treated him as Draughtsman of District level although he was posted in Collectorate in Geology & Mining Department. It is further submitted that the respondents have not reflected upon para 5.3 of the petition wherein it is averred that vide Annexure P/3 there shall not be any difference in respect of Draughtsmen working in various Department and the pay scale was provided to the Draughtsmen working in various department.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

From the perusal of the record it can be discerned that the petitioner was appointed as Draughtsman in the Colllectorate, Damoh as he had the prescribed qualification of Metric and ITI Diploma in the pay scale of Rs.90/- p.m. on 24.09.1963 and was confirmed on 01.05.1992. The petitioner has based his claim to receive the pay scale of Rs.1600-2720 w.e.f. 1.7.1989 and the scale of Rs.2000-2900 w.e.f. 26.8.1989 relying on the circular dated 04.05.1990 by which the pay scale of Draughtsman of all the mechanical departments of all the departments was revised to 1600- 2720 w.e.f. 01.07.1989 and Rs.2000-2900 w.e.f. 26.08.1989. In the aforesaid circular it is clearly provided that this scale would be applicable to only those employees who also hold the qualification for the relevant post like that of the employees of the Mechanical department and would be governed by the Revision of Pay Rules, 1990. The petitioner has also relied upon the circular dated 29.01.1991 which is actually a recommendation and tends to remove the anomalies present in various departments with respect to the same post and different qualifications which create difficulties in promotion from these posts. Thus, relying on the said circular, petitioner''s contention is that despite his low qualification he is also entitled to the higher pay scale as is being given to the Draughtsmen of other departments.

However, the contentions raised by the respondents appear to be more reasonable and pragmatic when they consider the claim made by the petitioner keeping in view his qualification in mind. The reliance placed by the respondents on the M.P. Class III (Ministerial & Non-Ministerial) and Class IV Service Recruitment Rules, 1965 cannot be said to be misplaced. It is clearly provided as per Entry 14 of Schedule III of the said Rules that the qualification for the post of Draughtsman in the scale of Rs.90/- p.m. would be certificate in Civil Draughtsmanship from I.T.I. whereas for the Draughtsman in the scale of Rs.170-315 it is Diploma in Civil Draftsmanship from Polytechhnic. It is further found by this court that the petitioner has not filed the complete seniority lists of different years which are filed collectively as Annexure-P/17 and only the covering memo and the relevant page has been filed whereas in the seniority list filed by the respondents as Annexure- R/5 for the years 1997 to 2000 it is clearly mentioned that it is in respect of Draughtsmen who are considered as Assistant Draughtsman as per Chaudhary Pay Commission. Petitioner has not denied the said documents, which have demonstrably belied the documents Annexure-P/17 filed by the petitioner. The respondents have also filed the document Annexure-R/2 dated 29.07.1983 whereby the petitioner''s pay was revised to Rs.205-375 which is in line with the M.P. Revision of Pay Rules, 1983 in which it is also provided that the employees getting pay scale of Rs.205-375 will get scale of Rs.635-950 and also that the Draughtsman working in the said pay scale would be designated as Assistant Draughtsman whereas the Draughtsman receiving pay scale of Rs.740-1180 continued to be designated as Draughtsman.

So far as the reliance placed by the petitioner on the circular dated 29.01.1991 is concerned, it is only an executive instruction and cannot override the Recruitment Rules of 1965 and also the Revision of Pay Rules, 1983 framed in this behalf and are of no help to the petitioner. Even in the basic circular annexure-P/2 dated 29.3.1990 provides that to get the higher pay scale, one must also possess the requisite qualification as of the Draughtsman of Mechanical departments which was Diploma in Civil Draftsmanship from Polytechhnic whereas the petitioner held the certificate in Civil draftsmanship from I.T.I. and despite this admitted position, the petitioner, in his rejoinder, has also tried to take advantage of the mistake on the part of the respondents in preparing the seniority list wherein against the petitioner''s name, at Sr. No.1 his qualification is mentioned as Diploma and at Sr.No.2 it is mentioned as I.T.I. Mechanical Draftsman.

On the basis of the aforesaid discussion and analysis of the documents filed by the parties on record, this court is of the considered view that the petitioner has miserably failed to prove his case and in fact there also appears to be deliberate omission on his part to file the complete seniority list Annexure-P/17 which is also viewed seriously, but, taking into account his age which must be around 76 at present, instead of a heavy cost, a nominal cost of Rs.1000/- (Rupees one thousand) is being imposed on the petitioner who has been wrongly advised to not to file the relevant documents forming part of a relevant document.

In the result the petition is hereby dismissed with the cost of Rs.1000/- (Rupees one thousand) as aforesaid to be paid to the M.P. State Legal Services Authority.