Madhya Pradesh High Court Directs State to Grant Benefit of Minimum Pay Scale to Permanent Employees

Must Read

Kerala High Court Rejects Writ Petition for Rejection of Loan Application

Case: Anvardeen. K v. Union of India. Coram: Justice P.V. Asha On 24th November 2020, The Kerala High Court involving a...

Supreme Court: Maritime Board Must Not Wallow in Inaction and Be Arbitrary in Its Contractual Duties

A Division Bench of the Supreme Court held that a State instrumentality such as the Maritime Board is expected...

Supreme Court: Right to Property Is a Constitutional Right, the Essence of Rule of Law Protects It

A Division Bench of the Supreme Court has held that permitting the State to assert indefinite right upon one’s...

Madras High Court Directs Tahsildar To Issue Origin Certificates To Two Sisters in Two Writ Petitions

Two Writ Petitions by two siblings was filed under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution. The petitions owed to...

Delhi High Court Directs Centre and Delhi Govt To Consider a PIL Seeking Paid Menstrual Leave as Representation

The Delhi High Court had provided direction to consider a petition as representation. The Central and Delhi governments were...

Follow us

The Court adjudicated the matter, in Rakesh Kumar Shrivastav & Ors. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors., where the application was filed regarding the benefits to be given to an employee after having been conferred the status of a permanent employee. It considered the identical contempt petitions already been disposed of by the Court by granting benefit of the regular pay scale. Hence, the present petition was allowed and accordingly dismissed.

Background

The Petitioners had filed an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking amendment in the cause title in respect of respondents No.3 and 4. It had been asserted that the Petitioner, who being labourers, even after been classified as permanent employees, had not received any benefit of the regular pay scale.

It was clarified by the Court that when the classification of the Petitioners was intact, the Petitioners shall be paid minimum of the pay scale as admissible to the post on which they had been working. Hence, the application was allowed.

Petitioner’s Submissions

Learned Counsel for the Petitioners submitted that he had already filed an amended copy of the petition seeking to get Petitioners, who happen to be the labourers further submitted that despite having been classified as permanent employees, they had not received any benefit of the regular pay scale.

It was also submitted by the Counsel for Petitioners that such identical petitions regarding the benefits flowing from an order of classification had already been disposed of by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court.

Petitioner’s Prayers

The Petitioner filed the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petition prayed to declare the impugned action on the Annexure P-1 of the Respondents as illegal and to quash the same. 

The Petitioners also prayed that the Court direct the Respondents to give the benefit of regular/ minimum pay scale to the Petitioners according to the posts on which they had been working. They further prayed that be classified as permanent employees and paid the difference of arrears on such fixation of pay scale from the order date of classification along with interest at 18% p.a. This figure was quoted by the Petitioners, as per the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ram Naresh Rawat vs Sri Ashwini Ray And Ors.

Another relief prayed for by the Petitioners was the regularization of their service by the Respondents. 

Observations by Court

The Court observed that similar issues had been adjudicated at the said Court as in the case of Ram Naresh Rawat Vs. Ashwini Ray And Ors. The Court had then clarified in the case, that if once employees were conferred the status of permanent employees by the Court and it had been categorically held that they were entitled to the regular pay attached to the post they had been working on, not only the pay should then be fixed in the regular pay scale, the Petitioners would even be entitled to the other increments attached to the said post. But it would depend only on the regularisation in service which would entail grant of increments etc. in the pay-scale.

The Court also considered that in some earlier cases, the State Government while fixing the pay scale had granted increments as well. However, if some persons would get the benefit wrongly, that would not form the basis of claiming the same relief. It is trite that right to equality as under Article 14 should not be in negative terms, as in the case of Indian Council of Agricultural Research & Anr. v. T.K. Suryanarayan & Ors.

Court’s Decision

With the aforesaid directions, the present petition was disposed of by the Court.

Given the submissions and prayers by the Petitioners, it was further directed that in case the classification of the Petitioners was found to be intact. The Court held that the Petitioners shall then be paid minimum of the pay scale admissible to the post on which they had been working. Further, the Court directed that the Petitioners should be classified as permanent employees, but without any increment. Moreover, if any arrears were worked out, the same shall have to be paid as soon as possible, within three months.

Click here to read the judgment.


Libertatem.in is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgment from courts. Follow us on Google News, InstagramLinkedInFacebook & Twitter. You can subscribe to our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Latest News

Supreme Court : High Courts Have Sole Authority Under Article 226 To Decide Validity of Tax Provision, Even if Matter Is Sub-Judice Before Income...

A Full Bench of the Supreme Court held that the validity of a provision is a serious matter which could only be decided by...

Kerala High Court Rejects Writ Petition for Rejection of Loan Application

Case: Anvardeen. K v. Union of India. Coram: Justice P.V. Asha On 24th November 2020, The Kerala High Court involving a single bench judge of the...

Supreme Court: Maritime Board Must Not Wallow in Inaction and Be Arbitrary in Its Contractual Duties

A Division Bench of the Supreme Court held that a State instrumentality such as the Maritime Board is expected to act without any arbitrariness...

Supreme Court: Right to Property Is a Constitutional Right, the Essence of Rule of Law Protects It

A Division Bench of the Supreme Court has held that permitting the State to assert indefinite right upon one’s property, without any legal sanction...

Madras High Court Directs Tahsildar To Issue Origin Certificates To Two Sisters in Two Writ Petitions

Two Writ Petitions by two siblings was filed under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution. The petitions owed to the fact that they were...

Delhi High Court Directs Centre and Delhi Govt To Consider a PIL Seeking Paid Menstrual Leave as Representation

The Delhi High Court had provided direction to consider a petition as representation. The Central and Delhi governments were directed to consider the same....

Madras High Court Reiterates That ‘Ignorance of Law’ Is Not an Excuse and Dismisses Petition by a Constable

A Constable committed bigamy and deserted his service for more than 21 days. After dismissal from his service, he moved to Tamil Nadu Administrative...

Transfer of Winding-up Proceedings Allowed Under S. 434, Restrictions Under 2016 Rules To Not Apply: Allahabad High Court

This appeal relates to the question of transfer of winding-up proceeding from the High Court (Company Court) to the NCLT.  Facts M/s. Girdhar Trading Company, 2nd...

Constitutional Court of South Africa Declares Provisions of Domestic Workers’ Injury Compensation Legislation To Be Unconstitutional

The Constitutional Court of South Africa in Sylvia Mahlangu v Minister of Labour , declared parts of the Compensation for Occupational Injuries and Diseases...

Bail Granted Under Section 167(2) CrPC Can Be Cancelled Under Section 439(2) CrPC: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court held that the right of default bail of the Accused can be cancelled under Section 439(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code. Facts...

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -