mOé {12/0 CD BEFQRE THE MADWA Pmzmsa 3mm AmINIsaRMIVE mi angAL AT JABN;PUR BE’I‘WEw KISAM?‘ H SHUKLA an!) of m1 &151a1 Prasad Stmkl aged about 38 years. 'lime Keepar at EHJhmb. mvision Mungeli, resident of Ramgopal ‘Ihmri Ward. Mungeli, Tah§1 Mungeli mstrict alaw‘w (MGPC’ .o 'APPLICMT it. AD N ~STATE OF ' MAMA PRADW Waugh: secretary Public Heal‘ii‘x Engineering Deparment. Bhopal WP. WERINTEVNNG EVGIHE§£ Public Health mgineering Depar'bnaat, EJagpur Circle, mLA$PUR M.P- EXEU'IIVE WGINE§Q, Public wealth mgingering Deparbnent, Elspur Dhdon (M..) . . N0N-APPLICAN§ . 5 a t a Si P HlGg COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR Single Bench: Hon’ble Shri Manindra Mohan Shrivastava J. Writ Petition ($1 No.122/2005 Shri Avinash Mishra, counsel for the petitioner. I Shri Chandresh Shrivastava, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondents. (ORAL: 0 R D E R (Passed on 29-03-2010) The petitioner calls in question the legality and validity of order dated 31-01 4989 to the extent petitioner was granted revised scale of pay of Rs.775~ 1200f- with effect from 01-09-1988. Petitioner has also prayed that he be granted promotion to the post of Lower Division Clerk with effect-from 22-06-1988 and placed over and above his juniors in the seniority list of Lower Divisional Clerks. (2) ‘ Facts relevant and necessary are that the petitioner was initially 3 appointed aswork charged_Time Keeper with effect from 19-12-1978 followed by appointment as work‘charged Iime Keeper vide order dated 0740-1981 (Annexure A-i) in the pay scale} of Rs.90-170/— for a period of six months. Thereafter, his services Were continued and even alter-expiry of six months, petitioner'was not terminated frotnrseirvrce Petitioner was though appointed in a time soale of pay, he was not granted increments. The petitioner made oral and written representation which failed to evoke any response. Petitioner was granted increment only after 01~09-1986 and not before. He was deprived of earned ‘ PETiTlONER: Kishan Shukia Versus RESPONDENTS: State of M. P. and others Present: leave, leave encashment facilities, medical reimbursement, loan and bonus facilities. The bonus which was earlier paid t him, was also recovered from his salary vide order dated 18-03-1987. Vide his representation dated 16—07-1987 (Annexure A-4), petitioner claimed grant of anual increment as per is appointment order dated 07-1 0-1981, revise pay scale as per recommendation of Choudhary Pay Commission and all other beefits;for which, a work charged Time Keeper is lawfully entitled. Vide order dated 22-06-1 988 (Annexure A—5), 14 Time-keeprs working in the Bilaspur Circle were promoted to the post of Lower Divison Clerk, but the petitioner was not granted such benet of promotion. ' i fi According to the petitior, persons junior to him were promoted. Though, the » petitioner has passed English an Hindi Typewriting examination, other persons juor to him, and not possessed of certificate of passing Typewriting examination, were promoted Vide order dated 22-06-1988 (Annexure Aa5). lt is also submitted that earlie lso on 06-04-1979 & 30-04-1979 (Annexure -6 & Annexure A-7) respectively, petitioner‘s case for promotion was emmended. Though, Vide impugned order dated 31-01-1989 (Annexure A-13), revised pay scale as been granted to the petitiner, but the same has been illegally granted h effect from 01 9-1 988 stead of gang the same h effect from 07-10- 1981 when e pener was appted as work charged e Keepe Plag rence government cular daed 22-11-1 988 (Annexure A—1 4) and 17-1 1- 1988 (Annexure A-15), petitioner has claimed that he is entitled to regular pay scale from the date of his appointment In the establlshment He was therefore Wit 0 In rtin wrt h , th titio om Tim r cin lia on cir t ‘5 i 7 entitled for regular pay scale from 97-10-1981 and not from 01-09-1988. (3) Per contra, submission of learned counsel for the respondents is that as the'appointment of the petitioner was only for a period of six months, he was not entitled for increment as per order dated 15-01-1985 and 17-09-1 985 passed by r o n h d n e ne d ni r a A rco h o , , the appointing authority and the government respectively. It is also submitted that the petitioner was again appointed as Work-charged employee and after 01-09-1985, he was entitled for increments and other benefits avaiiable to a Work-charged employee. it is also submitted that order dated 17-09-1985 (Annexure A-2) was later on modified by another order dated 25-09-1985 (Annexure A-3). As the petitioner was appointed as regular Time Keeper in the year 1985, thus, his seniority was considered from 1985 only. (4) Vide order dated 07~1 0-1981 (Annexure A—1), the petitioner was appointed as Work-charged Time keeper for a period of six months. This was purely a temporary appointment and liable to be terminated at any time without notice. Later on, petitioner was given regular appointment as Time Keeper after his selection by a selection committee with effect from 01-01-1 985, the effective date of‘the said order was later on modified as 01-09-1985, vide order dated 25-09-1985 (Annexure A-3). From seniority list (Annexure R-lll) filed along with the return, it is found that petitioner was placed at S.No.37 treating his date of regular appointment as 01 -09—1985. The entire claim of the petitioner rests on the . basis that while promoting those 14 Work-charged Time Keeper to the post of LoWer Division Cierks, who were juniors to th/e petitioner. seniority was not properly followed, as‘tn’e petitioner was appointed as Time Keeper vide order dated 07-10-1981, he was senior irom others. However, from the seniority list and the averments made by the respondents, it is clear that petitioner was granted seniority not from 07L1‘O—‘19s1’ when he_,was appointed without any selection and in a temporary capacity for’a‘period of six months, but his seniority was reckoned with effect from 01-09-1985, upon of his regular appointment after selection through selection committee vide order dated 17-09-1985 as modified by order dated 25-09-1 985. Contention of the petitioner is, therefore, rejected. (5) The other contention of the petitioner that white granting revised pay scale vide order dated 31-01-1989, it ‘ought to be given effect t0 from 07-10-1981 is also liable to be rejected. From perusal of order dated 31-01-1 989 (Annexure A- 13), it is clear that pursuant to certain policy decision, the educational qualification for holding the post of Work-charged Time Keeper was relaxed and all those Work-charged Time Keepers, who were possessed H.S.S.C. pass certificate, were granted revised pay seale of Rs. 775-1 200l- with effect from the date mentioned in the order i.e.O1-09-1988. From the aforesaid order dated 31- 01-1989, it is clear that this policy decision was contained in government’s . circular dated 22-11-1988 and 17-09-1988. Thus, the qualification was relaxed ’ only in 1988 whereupon the petitioner and similarly situated Time Keepers were benefited. it was a policy decision of the government to grant revised pay scale to Work-charged Time Keepers in view of the circular dated 22-1 1-1988 and 17- 11-1988. The petitioner has placed on record those two circulars as Annexure A- 14 and Annexure A-15. From those two circulars, it is revealed that the policy decision was to the effect that those daily wage employees who have been appointed prior to 01-01-1984 and have completed three years or more years of service on 01 ~01 1984 they be granted regular pay scale from the date of their ‘v apporntment in Work-charged and Contingency Establishment The requirement of qualification was relaxed. The minimum requirement of passing of H.S.S,C. in Mathematics subject was relaxed and it was decided that now the condition for grantmg regular pay scale Is to the effect that passrng H S S C in any subiect Will make the employee eligible as provrded under circular dated 22-11 1988 (Annexure A—1 4). ln the present case, petitioner was appornted in Work-charged establishment vide order dated 07-16-1 981 (Annexure A-1). The petitioner was appointed in a time scale of pay of Rs.90-170/-. it is not a case that from the date it of appointment in Work-charged establishment, petitioner was not granted any pay scale. What was granted te the petitioner vide order dated 31-01-1989 (Annexure A—13), was revised pay scale of Rs.775-1200/-. It is not the case of the petitioner that though on the date of his appointment in the Work-charged estabiishment i.e.07—10—1981, the pay scale of Rs.775-1 200I- was prevalent, yet petitioner was appointed in a lower pay scale of Rs.90-170/-. Therefore, there is no merit in the petitioner‘s claim that the revised pay scale of Rs.775—12001- should be granted with effect from the date on which he was appointed on the Work-charged establishment Lem-104981. The last contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that as the petitioner was appointed in a time scale of . pay vide order dated 07-10-1981 (Annexure A—1), he was entitled to grant of annual increments and the same could not be deferred till his regular appointment as Time Keeper in the Work-charged establishment vide order dated 17-09-1985 It is not in dispute that atter this regular appointment, petitioner was granted increments. There is no condition enumerated in the appointment order dated 07-1 0-1 981 (Annexure A-1) that petitioner shall not earn increments. The respondents have not brought to the notice of this Court any other statutory rules governing terms and conditions of appointment as temporary Time Keeper providing for non-payment of increment till regular appointment. What has been stated by the respondents in the return is that as ‘3 the petitioner was appointed only for a period of six months in temporary capacity, he was not entitled to increments. lt has been stated that such course of action was adopted and incrementswere not p’a‘ideas per orders of appointing authority dated 17-09-1985 and order dated 15-01-1985 of the State Government which are annexed as Annexure R-l‘and Annexure R-ll respectively. A perusal of the two orders does not contain any such stipulation. Once the petitioner was E , / appointed on time scaie of pay and there is no such condition governing such temporary appointment either in the order of appointment or any other statutory rules governing such appointments. it was iiiegal on the part of the respondents to withhold increments. The appointment on a time scale of pay clearly means that the pay along with increments at the rate indicated in the scale, unless the same is withheld by way of punishment, is payable under the time scale of pay‘ (6) Accordingly, it is held that petitioner having been appointed on a time scale of pay vide order dated 07-10-1981 in a temporary capacity, was entitled to payment of increments from the said date i.e.O7-1 0-1981. The respondents shall ' accordingly pay increment to the petitioner in the pay scale of Rs.90-170/- with effect from his initial date of appointment. Consequently, revision of pay upon such fixation on account of grant of increment from initial date of appointment, if not made. shall also be made. (7) The petition is accordingly allowed in part. There shall be no orders as to costs. Manindra Mohan Shrivastavai Judge Sd/- TUmBHe ”