GOMATI BAI Vs. STATE OF M.P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for various reliefs. However, Shri C.P.Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, fairly submits that he is confining his relief only for the grant of actual pay and arrears arising thereto pursuantto petitioner's retrospective regularization from 20.11.06. Learned counsel submits that respondents have rightly regularized the petitioner from due date i.e. 15.4.1998, but have committed an error in fixing her pay on notional/ proforma basis. He submits that petitioner has continuously worked with the department, and therefore, the principle of 'no work no pay' is not applicable in this matter. He submits that there is inaction on the part of the respondents in applying their own circular dated 15th April, 1998 (Annexure R/1) and for that petitioner cannot be made to suffer. By placing reliance on para 3 of Annexure R/1, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that qualification was relaxed way back in the year 1988 and it was delayed and there is inaction on the part of the respondents in regularizing the petitioner belatedly for which she cannot be deprived.

(2.) PER contra, learned Additional Advocate General for the State, supported the order Annexure P/1. He submits that in view of the recent Constitution Bench judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and others Vs. Uma Devi , (2006) 4 SCC 1, the petitioner was not even required to be regularized with retrospective effect. The petitioner has already received the benefit beyond her entitlement and nothing else is required to be done. He further submits that petitioner has worked with the department till her retirement as daily wager, and therefore, she cannot claim the benefit of regular pay scale. He submits that in the facts and circumstances of this case, the doctrine of proforma fixation is rightly applied by the respondents.

(3.) THE petitioner has already worked as a daily wager for the said period and the respondents have regularized her with retrospective effect. In these circumstances, the petitioner cannot be deprived from arrears of salary from the date of actual regularization. Accordingly, in my considered opinion on the basis of aforesaid analysis, the action of the respondents thereby they have fixed the salary on proforma basis cannot be upheld. The respondents are directed to treat the petitioner as regularized for all purposes and consequently she will be entitled to get the arrears of salary from due date. The impugned order Annexure P/1 dated 20.11.2006 to the extent the petitioner's salary was fixed on proforma basis is set aside.