A L THAKUR Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two petitions were originally filed as Original Application before the M.P. Administrative Tribunal, which have come on transfer to this Court after abolition of the Tribunal and have been registered as writ petition. Since a common claim is made in both the writ petitions, common relief is claimed only on the basis of orders passed by the Tribunal in earlier petitions, which have been implemented by the State Government, these petitions were heard together and are being decided by this common order. The facts as have been mentioned in Writ Petition No.16054/2003 (O.A.No.5178/2000) are taken for the purposes of this order.

(2.) The petitioners, who all were appointed as 'Timekeepers' have approached the Tribunal by way of filing joint Original Applications claiming that the revision of pay in their cases be rightly done, granting them benefit of pay scale of Rs.515-800 with effect from 1.4.1982, the benefit of pay scale of Rs.950-1530 with effect from 1.1.1986 and the benefit of pay scale of Rs.3050-4590 with effect from 1.1.1996 as was ordered by the Tribunal in various cases, treating them at par with the employees working in the aforesaid pay scale. The common claim made by the petitioners was that they were appointed as 'Timekeeper' in the establishment of the respondents, were discharging the same duties and functions as were discharged by many other employees. The nomenclature of the post of 'Timekeeper' was changed to be 'Field Assistant' by orders of the State Government. However, at the time of giving the benefit of pay scale, right pay scales were not prescribed for the persons like petitioners and, therefore, the Original Applications were filed before the M.P. Administrative Tribunal. One such Original Application being O.A.No.126/99 was filed which came up for hearing before the Tribunal and, ultimately, was decided in terms of the decision rendered by the Tribunal in various cases such as T.A.No.993/1988 decided on 6.11.1998 by Gwalior Bench. The Tribunal came to hold that since such decision of the Gwalior Bench were affirmed and the orders were issued by the State Government in respect of those persons, similar benefits as were granted in the case of Laxmi Narayan Upadhyay Vs. State of M.P. and others, would be applicable to the case of the petitioners also. However, in case of certain persons those who have approached the Tribunal, the benefit of revised pay scale was granted in appropriate manner, but the said benefit was not extended to the petitioners, therefore, they were required to file the Original Application. The orders so passed by the Tribunal have been placed on record as Annx.A/3 and A/ 4 and the consequential orders issued by the State Government are placed on record as Annx.A/5 and A/7. In the order dated 11.7.1999 Annx.A/7, the State Government very categorically directed that the orders passed by the Tribunal be complied with. However, in the cases of the present petitioners, such orders were not issued, therefore, the joint petitions were filed.

(3.) In response to the notice issued by the Tribunal, the State Government has filed a return and has tried to justify its stand saying that the recommendation for grant of pay scale by the Pay Commission is accepted by the State Government and since the Commission has recommended different pay scales for the persons like petitioners, taking into consideration their job responsibilities, the petitioners were not entitled to the relief claimed in the petition. It is tried to canvass that a different pay scale has been made available for the persons like petitioners since they were working in the work charged contingency establishment and they were not to be treated at par with those who were granted a higher pay scale. It is contended that Expert Committee like Pay Commission is required to take into account various facts such as the nature of the job, the duties assigned to each and every post, the gravity of the responsibilities put on such persons holding the post and then only to prescribe the pay scale. Since this has been done in rightful manner, merely because in some of the cases, the orders have been passed, it cannot be said that the petitioners are also entitled to the similar benefit. It is, thus, tried to canvass that the entire claim of the petitioners based on certain decisions of the Tribunal is misconceived and the petitions are liable to be dismissed.