The Madhya Pradesh High Court has directed the competent authority to decide the representation of the petitioner within three months regarding the payment of minimum pay scale admissible to the post on which the petitioner has been classified as a permanent employee.
A Single-Judge Bench of Justice Vishal Mishra passed the order on a petition filed by a semi-skilled laborer, seeking direction to the respondents to give the benefit of regular/minimum pay scale of the post on which the petitioner is working and classified as a permanent employee from July 16, 2014, and further directions to the respondents to regularise the services of the petitioner and make him a member of GPF.
A petitioner who happens to be semi-skilled labour submitted that despite having been classified as a permanent employee under the M.P. Industrial Employment (Standing Order) Act 1961, no benefit of regular pay scale has been extended to him. He further submitted that the classification order of the Petitioner is still intact and has not been canceled by the authorities. Petitioner has been regularized vide order dated 10.11.2016 and he claims the benefits of a classified employee from the date of classification up to his regularization.
Reliance was made on the Judgement of the Apex Court in the case of Ram Naresh Rawat Vs. Ashwini Ray reported in 2017 (Vol 3) SCC 436, relevant extract of which reads-
“4…….. The precise submission is that once they are conferred the status of a 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, but the petitioner would also be entitled to the increments and other emoluments attached to the said post. 18. 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? 26. From the aforesaid, it follows that though a ‘permanent employee’ has the right to receive payments in the graded pay- scale, at the same time, he would be getting only a minimum of the said pay scale with no increments. It is only the regularization in service which would entail a grant of increments etc. in the pay scale. 27. 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 the right to equality under Article 14 is not in negative terms (See Indian Council of Agricultural Research & Anr. v. T.K. Suryanarayan & Ors.9 ). 28. These contempt petitions are, accordingly, dismissed”.
Read Also: Delhi High Court adjourns hearing plea of Sushant Singh Rajput’s father
A Single Bench of Justice Vishal Mishra in view of the facts and considering the statement made by the Counsel for the Petitioner directed that Petitioner shall submit a detailed representation to the competent authority and in turn, the competent authority is directed to dwell upon the same and decide the same by passing speaking order within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order.
“In case it is found that the order of classification of the petitioner is not canceled at any point of time, then the petitioner is paid the minimum of the pay scale admissible to the post on which he has been classified as a permanent employee without any increment till his regularization subject to verification of the fact that the classification order was intact and not been canceled. Arrears if any be worked out, as a necessary consequence and be paid to the petitioner within a further period of two months”, the order read.