Et%gSB^^?i£S3A"3" '^1 •^ co.^a^^ BEFOaE ?H@ MAOHYA PRAOJSSH ATATB ADMINISmATI^B TRffiUHAL. j^iBALPyM O.A. No^S7/5 )/199© APELKAMF RSSPCNDBHCS Satyaaarayaa Ra^wade AN3 afcate o-f M.P. E^M Irrigation Departmeat aad 3 others, QETAILS GP APELieATIOM : 1 Partiot&ars of -fche ApplioaBt (1) Nasae ©fAp^ieaat (2) Naae of fatfaer (5) Age of Applicant ($) Qesigoatioa aod Ba rfei< oylars o£ offioe ia which eaployed (5) Gffiee address (6) Address forssrvi®® o£ lotiee 2 Particulars of RespQneieats : (1)Name of aespoadeat ^ (2) Hame o£ fatfaer (5) Age Q£ Respoadeafc (4) Oesigoation aod parfci- cQlars o£ office io wfaieh employed (5) ©£ficeAddress (6) Address j£or service o£ eotioe Satyaaarayan Rajwade Dasbx'atfa Ram aa^wade aboat 55 years, Toraer Qde I B/M,FGIi Sub Divisioia, Ghakra. ^har lagar, Raigarh, As above As above s li 1 State eje M.P, tfarotigh tiae Secretazy, IrrigatioQ D epartmen-fc, Vallabh Btoawaa, Blaopal, 2 Staperiatendi^g Sagiaeer S/M, Irrigation BUhiccx, Kew Sfaan.ti Nagar, Raipiar. 5 Exeoutive aigiaeer, E/M Mm IrrigatioQ - Division, Behind Balram Talfcies, | Btlasptar, ; 4 Sub DivisioB9l»©£fiG@r E/M^^i, Chateradfaar NBgar? Kaigarfa ^S^^'r. § •<^^L..^-... ^ ^ l-1 1 HIGH GOURT OF CHHAmSGARH: BILASPUR Sinate Bench: Hon*bte Shri Manindra Notian Shrivastava. J. APRJCANT RESPONDENTS WRTr PETITION (Sl N0.254^006 Satyanarayan Rqjwade Versus Stake oTMadhya Praidesh and olhere Present:- Shri Q. D. Guru, counsel tbr the peBttoner. Shri Ajay Dwwedi, Deputy Govt. Advocate fbr the State. (Pa»Mdon thw 26md^olltorch,2010) VWth Ihe consent of tearned counsel for the parties, the pettion is heard finally. (2) By this peUUon, petiUoner has prayed for issuance of directton to respondents to (^ sa|iry |ndate^arT9are in Ih^p^^ oyRs.836-96(y- w»h effect from 01-04-1982 aocoirfOTB to revised pay rutos. 1984. Prtitfoner has lurther prayed that direction be issued to respondente to revise his pay under Revision of Pay Rytes, 1987 wilh effect from 01^)1-1996 in the scato of Rs.1200-1MO/- fbr the post pf Tumer Gracte-1. In additfon, piayer has also been made forgrant of interest @ 18% on the amount of the arrears ofp^ payabto to the petitioner. (3) The genesis of ^sputo glying ifee to the pepon, »adumbrated in Ihe petifi^ isjiat the pefitfoner^^^^w^ as Tumer Giade-1 in adhoc capacity vkte order ^ jn the pay scale of RS.120-14W-. jn ttt? work-chaiged esteblishment of Department of Watw Resources, Govt, of Madhya Pradesh. With ackBtion of annual increments, ,.^^^^ ^^f ^l -'L- p^itfoner reached on a higher stage in the pay scato. Case of the petNioner is that in view of the promulgatton of Madhya Pradesh KaryaMiarit Tatha Aakasmikta Se Vetan Pane Wate Karamchari Vetan Punrilcshran Niyam, 1984 dn short "Rutos <rf1984^,petW|!?nerwB j&^|^toM scale of Rs.635-95<y" in view of thg> provisfons<^gntaii^ read wtth corresponcBng pay scate ^^^s^^ jn Annexure A-1 and Annexvro A-2 appended to the Rute®.This, howwer, was not grantBd and ttw petitioner continued to draw salaiy in ttie pay scate of Rs.120-14(y- wtthout reviwon of pay in the revised pay ^cato. In couree pf thne, furthw rwision of pay took place under subsequent|leyisj<m of P^ Rutos, 1987, which was macte effectiw ftom 01-01-1986. This revised payscato ww als| not^^n^^ and the peWoner cwUnyed to draw satery in the oM unrevised pay scato ofRs.120- 140/-. Accoreling to Ihe petitipner, Ae rutos oMigod the pesponctonts to flx the pay of the peUdoner in the reyfe||l pay scato of Rs.835^6<y- prescribed fcr the post of Tumer Gracto-1 undw^ ofthe liutes ol 198-t and thereupon consequent feeation in the next reyi^ olRs.1200-184(V- with etfect from 01-01-1986. AccoidJngtothe|M|titJpner^w^ repnisentaUons made faitod to evoke any response, Ihis peUUon was fited. (4) On the <^er^ to^ altor haying been promylgdted w^re found to be anomalous in opention and impten^taliw leiiding to amendi^^ datod 30-08- 1986 (Annexure R-lll). Leamed ^Ne counsel further submjte thrt in view of the omission of |%ay scate indicatod in ophimn 0) of Anrwxure-2, petiUoner is not enUUed to dai(n pay scato of Rs.GS^SQI-, Hisftirther submissfon is that as the petifioner had npt gwen any option, Ws pay scate inNially could not be flxed but later on, after filing of mstant petition, pay scrie of tfie petilfoner in -3- ^ corresponding tower pay scato specNied under the Rutos of 1984, and thereafter, fixation of pay has teken place in the pay acato of Rs.445-6^-, whfch aton®is apprepriato pay scate, to whfch, ttie petittoner is •ntittod under the Rutes. It is ateo submilted that in view oTgrw< ol pay scato ofRs.445^36^, consequent fixaUon of pay in the pay scale of Rs.77S-12GKy- has ateo taton ptace and all subsequent rwfeion of pay hi the revteed pay scates. tt is argued that there is no iNegaNly in maWng fixalion of pay of tfi®peUttoner and the pefitfon has nomerit (5) From the pteadings macte in the petilton, whfch hay®notbeen disputed, it is found that the p^i^ner w|s appointod on adhocbasj| on the post of Tumer Grade-t In the pay scato ofRs.120-140/-. Whito th®pelttioner was so continued, the Rutes of 1984 came mto foree. The rutos contemptated that twnsed pay scate woukt be granted to pennanent and temporary category of emptoyees under Ihe Work-charged and Contingency Establishmeiit. Rule-4 provided that the revised pay scate In respect of pay scato prescrttwl jn Column (2) of Annexure-1 would be as prescribed in cohinm (4) thenof. Ruto-5 provktod that permanent or temporary emptoyee of Work-cha^ged/Conllngency EstabWshment wilt draw salary in the payscsile prescribed for Ihe post whfoh it hokte. (6) Initialfy a prwision was made hi Annexure-2 of the Rutos piBtcribing p^ scato of Rs.835-960/- for •»post pf Tumer Grade-1 subject to the quaWfcalion prescribed in ookimn (4) thereof. Later on, by amendinent in the rutes vkle notffication dated 30-08.1986 (^nnexure R-UI) cdumn (3) ofAnnexur9-2 and th® pay scate shown thereunder was omjtted. The effect of this omissfon was that the pay scale of Rs.635-960/- no tongw continued as revised pay scato for the post of Tumer Grade-1. tn yiew of sych omi|sjon, conjoint reading of variouB -^t provisions conteined In Ihe rutos particutarly Rul»3,4 & 5 and entrws macte under various columns Annexure A-1 & A-2 woukl roveri that grant of revised pay scale woutol ess^ntially d^end upon unrevised pay scato. Thereforo, it fe now to be seen whether fbeation ^ pay inthe (»y»csato of R^,|4^635/- was revised pay scato correspoftdwig to unro^|Bd pay s^les^^^ 1707- and Rs.105-120-140^170-200/-. tt appeare that as there was no corresponcBng revfeed pay scato s^wm in the rutos with n^erence to the pay scate RS.120-14W-, r^ponderrt auth^ifies^j^ <he piy of tt»p^ittoner in the revised pay wate of Rs.445^35/-, by apelying som®formula Isased on logfc rather than spjidfic provisfon as in the entire rutes, there te no proviswn as to how revised pay scale woukl be fixed where an emptoyee betongs to Work- charged/Continigency Estotljshment is drawing p^ scato not prwcribed in column (2) ofSctiie<Me-1.Whatis^ on record by the respondente is tt^p^oner's payscalcwas^h^ assumed in the tower p^ scato <rf »^10S-1|0^14CyTO-3^^ Ws pay was fixed in Ihe pay scato of Rs.445-^35^. Therei^, pe|N^^ was fixed in the next corrosponcBng higher (wy scato <»fRs.775-1200/- with affect from 01- 01-1866. Finally. thc peftioner's pay wasfixed in the pay scato oT Rs.TTS-iaw- on 04-02-1991 fited cumulatfvety as Annexure R-1. (7) Thoygh the marmer in wh^ t^pairh^^^ not seem to be based on any par^teff provfeton or mte o^^ 1984 and the case of the petiUoner has beenjtoalt with by aptrfying some principtos not rrttocted nor diseemabto from ?ny of the provtsions or Rutos. yet I find that the pay scato of Rs.635-960/- couki not be said t& b®reviseel |»y8c|ito prescribed with reference to the pay scato of the post of Tumer Grade-1 m view of the amendnwnt incorporaited in the ru^s vide notificatfondatod 30.08-1988. -s" li s (8) Leamed counsel for the petttfoner referring to avermenb made In the ^joinstor submittod that he has been subje^ted to hostito discriminalfon in as much as one Shri Kanhaiya Lal Upadhyay, who bas been woridng as Tumer Grade-111, two rank betow to the post pfttie petitioner, ha»been granted pay scate of Rs.960-1530/- whteh is revised pa^ scato corrwponding to loww pay scate of RS.515-WV-. It is not known under what dreumstonces the sakl Kanhaiya LalUpQdhyay.TyrnerGradt-IHw^sei^pyjngthe piyscato ofRB.515- 9001- pr«»ribedat S,No,7, column (2) oTAnnexuro-2 oftbe RMtes of 1984.Last submisston of teamed counsel for the pettioner js that sutwequently vide notifteation dated 28-03-1986, posts of Tumer GraGte-lll wBre created wherein pay scale was prescribed as Rs.635-95(y-The soolted nolification dated 28-03-1986. JrKficated pay scate of Tumw Grade-1 as Rs.635-960/- in view of the provfeions conteined m the ^utos^^^^ wwe amcnded subsequentthereofvidenotjffeat|ondat|dm»-19^(Annexure R-WI). (9) In this view of the matter, 1 am qnabto to uphoW that petitfoner was entNted to pay spale of Rs.63S^5(y-j»rcwrei|»on^ing^^^^^^ pay scate of Rs.1200.184(y. asjwayed in the peUfion. Peifon is therefore dismfesed. No ordere as to costs. Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Jude 'nm^M'ie