High CourtsSingle Bench(2017) 01 MP CK 0190

Bhupendra Singh Yadav vs State of Madhya Pradesh

Madhya Pradesh High Court · Decided on 20 January 2017

HON’BLE JUDGES
Sujoy Paul
CASE NUMBER
20174 of 2014

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

14 paragraphs · 675 words
1.

Petitioner has prayed for following relief in the the writ petition: (i) The Hon''ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct to respondents make the payment of salary as per revised pay scale and as per school Rachnakram/Vetaan Niyatan Patrak (Memo), after absorption of the petitioner and from the date of absorption of the institution dated 21.04.2010.

(ii) To direct the respondents to grant other services benefits and to take decision about the seniority and benefit of 5th and 6th pay commission regarding to the claim of petitioner.

(iii) Any other relief which this Hon''ble Court may deems fit and proper in favour of petitioner may also be given, in the interest of justice.

2.

During the course of arguments, Shri Alok Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that he is confining his prayer for grant of benefit of pay scale/salary as per 5th Pay Commission.

3.

In short, the case of the petitioner is that he is an employee of respondent No.5-institution. This institution was earlier an aided institution getting 100% grant-in-aid from the State Government. The said institution was later on taken over by the State Government. Reliance is placed on document dated 18.08.2011 (Annexure-P/1), which shows that the employees of the said College are absorbed under certain conditions.

4.

Shri Alok Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that once the petitioner became regular employee of Zila Panchayat, there is no justification in depriving him from pay and allowances as per 5th Pay Commission.

5.

Smt. Sonali Shrivastava, learned P.L. for the State placed reliance on the return, wherein it is averred that the petitioner is getting revised regular pay scale as per prevalent revised pay scale. The petitioner is working as Accountant and as per revised scale (Rs.5,200-20,200/-), the benefit was extended to the petitioner w.e.f. 01.11.2011 only. It is submitted that the decision was taken to extend the said scale w.e.f. 01.11.2011 only. It is submitted that the claim of the petitioner to get the said scale w.e.f. 21.04.2010 is not tenable because the decision to implement the said scale was taken later on and from the different date i.e. 01.11.2011.

6.

Petitioner during the course of argument has also relied on circular dated 09.02.2016, which is applicable to the aided institutions. As per this circular, the pay scale based on 5th Pay Commission is directed to be extended to the employees of said institutions w.e.f. 01.01.1006. Shri Kumar also relied on circular dated 09.02.2016 (Annexure-RJ/1) which is related to grant of pay scale to the employees of the aided institutions.

7.

No other point is pressed by learned counsel for the parties.

8.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record.

9.

The core issue is : whether the petitioner is entitled to get the benefit of 5th Pay Commission w.e.f. 21.04.2010 ?

10.

In the return, the respondents have contended that the Zila Panchayat has taken decision to extend the revised pay scale w.e.f. 01.11.2011. In Para 11, it is averred that at the time when 5thy Pay Commission came into being, the petitioner was working in the Non-Government Institution from where he was getting salary. The respondents have not disputed that even that institution was getting 100% grant-in-aid by the State Government. Thus, as per the stand of the respondents also, the petitioner is entitled to get benefit of 5th Pay Commission from the date of claim i.e. 21.04.2010. Between 21.04.2010 to 01.11.2011, as per the stand of the respondents, petitioner was an employee of aided private institution. In view of the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of State of M.P. Vs. Sharique Ali, decided on 7th January, 2014 in Civil Appeal No.6362/2004 and the Government Circulars based on it, petitioner is entitled to get benefit of pay scale of 5th Pay Commission.

11.

Resultantly, this petition is allowed by directing the respondents to grant the benefit of 5th Pay Commission to the petitioner from 21.04.2010.

12.

Petition is allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove. No cost.