High CourtsDivision Bench

State of M.P. vs Gurunarain Katiyar

Madhya Pradesh High Court · Decided on 18 September 2013 · Citation: (2013) 09 MP CK 0245

HON’BLE JUDGES
S.K. Gangele, J · Rohit Arya, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
W. A. No. 427 of 2013

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

7 paragraphs · 652 words
1.

Heard on I.A. No. 6978/2013, an application for condonation of delay. Looking to the facts of the case and the fact that there is a delay of 18 days in filing the appeal, the application (I.A. No. 6978/2013) is allowed and delay in filing the appeal is hereby condoned.

2.

Also heard on admission.

3.

This writ appeal has been filed by the appellants-State against the order dated 14-05-2013 passed in Writ Petition No. 4853/2012(S).

4.

By the aforesaid order, the writ Court has held that the respondent is eligible to receive benefit of pay scale of 6th Pay Commission w.e.f. 01-01-2006 with all consequential benefits. Earlier the respondent filed an application before the labour Court in regard to his classification and payment of regular pay scale. The labour Court vide order dated 13-08-1999 allowed the application and ordered for grant of increment to the respondent after one year from the date of his appointment i.e. 01.11.1983 and also ordered for fixation of his salary w.e.f. 12-05-1995. The labour Court further ordered that the respondent shall be eligible to receive the difference of salary w.e.f. 12-05-1995. Against the aforesaid order, the appellants filed an appeal before the Industrial Court, that was also dismissed. Thereafter, the appellants filed a petition which was registered as Writ Petition No. 713/2003. It was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 14-07-2003. Thereafter, an LPA was filed and it was dismissed as not maintainable. Thereafter, an SLP was filed before Hon''ble the Supreme Court, which was registered as SLP No. 6990-91/2008 and it was dismissed. This fact has been mentioned in the order dated 27-09-2008, copy of which has been filed before the writ Court as Annexure P-5. Thereafter, the respondent was given regular pay scale of Rs. 2750-70-3800-75-4400/- w.e.f. 01/11/1983 and he was also given the difference of salary. His pay was fixed by the Department and he was also given benefit of 5th Pay Commission. When he was not given benefit of 6th Pay Commission, he filed a petition i.e. Writ Petition No. 4853/2012(S) before the writ Court. The writ Court allowed the writ petition vide order dated 14-05-2013 after holding that when the benefit of 5th Pay Commission was granted to the respondent, he is eligible to receive the benefit of 6th Pay Commission also.

5.

Learned Additional Advocate General has contended that regular pay scale could not be granted to a classified employee. He further contended that the aforesaid point is pending before Hon''ble the Supreme Court in a Special Leave Petition.

6.

The contention advanced by learned Additional Advocate General could not be accepted in the facts and circumstances of the present case because in the present case, the labour Court vide order dated 13-08-1999 allowed the application and ordered for grant of increment to the respondent after one year from the date of his appointment i.e. 01.11.1983 and also ordered for fixation of his salary w.e.f. 12-05-1995. The labour Court further ordered that the respondent shall be eligible to receive the difference of salary w.e.f.

7.

12-05-1995. Against the aforesaid order, the appellants filed an appeal before the Industrial Court, that was also dismissed. Thereafter, Writ Petition No. 713/2003 filed by the appellants was dismissed vide order dated 14-07-2003. Thereafter, an LPA was filed and it was dismissed as not maintainable. Thereafter, an SLP was filed before Hon''ble the Supreme Court was dismissed. The regular pay scale was given to the respondent of Rs. 2750-70-3800-75-4400/- w.e.f. 01/11/1983 and he was also given the difference of salary. His pay was fixed by the Department and he was also given benefit of 5th Pay Commission. Thereafter, the respondent was also granted benefit of 5th Pay Commission. Hence, in our opinion, learned writ Court has rightly held that the respondent is eligible to receive benefit of 6th Pay Commission. We do not find any merit in this writ appeal. It is hereby dismissed.