WP-217-2017. Case: Satyanarayan Vs Narmada Valley Development Department. High Court of Madhya Pradesh (India)
| Case Number | WP-217-2017 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Manish Yadav, Learned Counsel and For Respondents: Pushyamitra Bhargava, Learned Counsel |
| Judges | S.C. Sharma, J. |
| Issue | Constitution of India - Articles 136, 226; Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Section 2(ra) |
| Judgement Date | February 01, 2017 |
| Court | High Court of Madhya Pradesh (India) |
Judgment:
S.C. Sharma, J.
-
Finally heard with consent of the learned counsel for the parties.
-
By this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner is praying for issuance of writ of mandamus directing the respondents to grant regular pay-scale (5th & 6th pay-scale) along with arrears and consequential benefits on the ground that identical issue has been decided by the learned Single Judge on 22.7.2015 in W.P. No. 3418/2014 and thereafter, the writ appeal filed by the State has been dismissed. Order dated 22.7.2015 and 14.12.2015 reads as under:-
"Heard finally with consent.
The petitioner before this court has filed this present petition for issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents to pay the minimum of pay scale, as per the recommendation of the 6th Pay Commission.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has brought to the notice of this Court order delivered in the case of Sunil Kumar Daya v. State of M.P. and others in W.P. No. 3415/2014 (s) decided on 10-04-2015 in respect of Narmada Valley Development Department, Bhopal and his contention is that a similar order be passed in the present case also keeping in view the order passed in the case of Sunil Kumar Daya (supra).
Learned counsel for the respondent has not opposed the above submission.
This court in the case of Sunil Kumar Daya held as under:-
"In the present case, the petitioner's contention is that he was appointed as a dailywager on 11-01-1990 under the Narmada Valley Development Authority, which is an instrumentality of the State of Madhya Pradesh and since then he is continuously working with the respondents. Petitioner has further stated that in case of rest of the employees respondents have granted them minimum of the pay scale, as per recommendation of the 5th and 6th Pay Commission and the petitioner has enclosed Annexure-P-3, which is on record dated 28-10-2010. The same reflects that as many as fourteen Writ Petitions were preferred before this court and they have been allowed and thereafter a contempt petitions were preferred and because of the contempt petitions, respondents have granted the pay scale as prayed by the petitioners, therein. Petitioner's contention is that he is an identically placed person like the petitioners, whose names have been mentioned in Annexure-P-3 dated 28-10-2010 and he is also entitled for the same relief.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the Respondent State has argued before this court that the petitioner is not entitled for the regular pay scale and, therefore, he has drawn the attention of this court towards the judgment delivered in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh and others v. Yogesh Chandra Dubey and others reported in Judgment Today 2006(8) SC 595. He has also placed reliance upon a judgment delivered by the apex court in the case of State of Punjab and others v. Surinder Singh and another in Civil Appeal No. 5607-5608 of 2001. Respondents have also placed reliance upon a judgment delivered by the apex court in the case of S.C. Chandra and others v. State of Jharkhand and others reported in AIR SC 3021 (Annexure-R-5). Respondents have also placed reliance upon a judgment delivered by the Principal seat of this court in the case of WP No. 1773/2006 (Girwar Singh Morya v. State of M.P. and others) and in the case of WP No. 21928/2011 (Saiyad Naeem Ulhussain and others v. State of MP. and others) and his contention is that the petitioners are not entitled for minimum of the pay scale, as prayed by them. It has been further stated that the judgment delivered in the case of Girwar Singh Morya is the case of Forest Department and the judgment delivered in the case of Saiyad Naeem Ulhussain is the case of N.V.D.A. In the case of Girwar Singh Morya (supra), the relief has not been granted. However in the case of Saiyad Naeem Ulhussain (supra) respondents therein have been directed to decide the claim of the petitioner, in accordance with law.
The contention of the learned counsel for the respondent is that the petitioner is not entitled for the minimum of the pay scale as claimed by him.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The matter is being disposed of with the consent of the parties at the admission stage itself.
This court after hearing the parties at length has carefully gone through various judgments delivered from time to time. In the case of Kishori Lal Prajapati and others v. State of M. P. and others in WP No. 5332/2010(s) in paragraphs 5 to 9, this court has held as under:-
5. Now the only controversy which is to be examined whether the refusal to grant the minimum of the pay scale after revision of the pay of the post on which the petitioners are continuing for a long period is justified or not, and whether in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and others v. Uma Devi (3) and others [(2006) 4 SCC 1], it would be possible for this Court to grant such a relief to the petitioners, as has been considered by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of M.P. Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd.(supra). In the case in hand, the situation is totally different. At no point of...
To continue reading
Request your trial