ABDUL RAZZAQ Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner who was working as Pump Operator in Gandhi Medical College, Bhopal, approached this Court by this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a direction against the Respondents to grant the benefit of revised pay scale of Rs. 870-1420 with effect from 1.1.1986 as also the pay scale of Rs. 950-1530 with effect from 1.1.1986 on account of further revision and benefit of pay scale of Rs. 3050-4590 with effect from 1.1.1996 and revision of his pay and payment of entire arrears of salary. It is the case of the Petitioner that the Pump Operators were given the pay scale of Rs. 515-800 which was revised to Rs. 870-1420 with effect from 1.1.1986 as per the Madhya Pradesh Revision of Pay Rules, 1987.

(2.) It is the case of the Petitioner that the aforesaid pay scale was further revised with effect from 1.1.1986 in the pay scale of Rs. 950-1530 and a further revision had taken place as per the Madhya Pradesh Revision of Pay Rules, 1998 and this pay scale was revised to Rs. 3050-4590. It is further contended that since persons like Petitioner were appointed in isolated posts which were not provided with any channel of promotion, the Scheme of Kramonnati was formulated and it was provided that those who were working in the pay scale of Rs. 3050-4590 for a period of more than 12 years, they be given the pay scale of Rs. 3500-5200. The claim of the Petitioner is further that he made several representations, pointed out the fact that his salary was not properly revised in the pay scale of Rs. 870-1420 when the revision had taken place with effect from 1.1.1986. On the other hand, the Petitioner was given the pay scale of Rs. 825-1220, yet no decision was taken and anomaly created in the revision of pay of the Petitioner was not removed; as a result throughout the service, the Petitioner has suffered the loss.

(3.) It is also the case of the Petitioner that on account of this illegality, the Petitioner has not only suffered monetary loss during service, but after his retirement, his pension and retiral dues have also not been fixed properly and still the Petitioner is suffering monetary loss. Despite making all efforts by making representations continuously, the injustice caused to the Petitioner is not redressed, therefore, he was required to file the present writ petition.