Durga Panwar vs State Of Madhya Pradesh And Others

By this petition the petitioner has prayed for grant of the annual increments as well as the regular pay-scale from initial appointment.

The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed on compassionate grounds vide order dated 04.08.1997 in the pay-scale of Rs.725-10-735-12-856-900.

The above order was modified vide order dated 12.01.1999 vide Annexure P-3 and the petitioner was appointed telephone attendant w.e.f. 11.11.1998 and posted at Indore. The petitioner was granted the regular pay-scale at Rs.2750-70-3800-75-44 w.e.f. 01.11.2001 vide Annexure P-4.

The petitioner has submitted the representation (Annexure P-5) on 09.01.2014 for grant of the regular pay-scale from her initial appointment w.e.f. 1997.

The respondents have filed the return and not disputed the fact that the petitioner was initially appointed vide order dated 04.08.1997 in the pay-scale in lieu of her husband and the above order was modified vide Annexure P-3 and the petitioner was appointed on the post of telephone attendant w.e.f. 11.11.1998. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner was granted regular pay-scale of Rs.2750-70-3800-75-44 w.e.f. 01.11.2001.

The respondents have granted the regular pay-scale only from 01.11.2001 and not granted the regular pay-scale from the initial appointment. The petitioner has been granted the fix pay as per the collector rate for 3 years and no increment has been granted to petitioner from the date of her initial appointment. The contention of the petitioner is that she is entitled for the regular pay-scale w.e.f. 1997 and the increment w.e.f. 1998.

The further contention of petitioner is that the denial of regular pay-scale from 1997 and increment w.e.f. 1998 is illegal at the strength of the judgment passed in W.P. (s) No.9000/2003 decided on 05.05.2004 (Hariom Soni Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and others).

Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

It is apparent from the record and undisputed fact is that the petitioner was appointed on compassionate ground in regular pay-scale but not granted actual benefit of regular pay-scale w.e.f. 1997 and modified order on the post of telephone attendant w.e.f. 11.11.1998 and has been paid only at collector rate.

The controversy was already resolved by the order of this Court passed in W.P. No.9000/2003 and in other many petitions and it is held that the petitioner are entitled for the regular pay-scale from the date of their initial appointments.

The contention of the respondents is that the petitioner is a public works department employee and the order passed in W.P. No.9000/2003 is not applicable but above contention cannot be accepted for the simple reason that the court had decided the controversy regarding the grant of regular pay-scale from the date of initial appointment. In the present case, the petitioner has been granted the regular pay scale w.e.f. initial appointment and therefore, non-grant of same from initial appointment is illegal.

In the light of the above discussion, the petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to grant the regular pay-scale and revised pay scale with arrears to the petitioner w.e.f. from her initial appointment i.e. from 04.08.1997 and regular annual increments w.e.f. 1998 along with arrears and consequential benefits within 4 months.

With the aforesaid, present petition stand disposed of.