KISHORI LAL PRAJAPATI Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two petitions have been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the same relief on the same facts by the petitioners, therefore, both the writ petitions are heard together and are being decided by this common order.

(2.) The facts as mentioned in this order are taken from Writ Petition No.5332/2010(S). The petitioners have come before this Court contending that they are the employees of Narmada Valley Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as NVDA for brevity), Bhopal, and are working on the post of driver in the office of Executive Engineer NVDA, Bhopal. Though the petitioners have remained working for a long period of more than 20 years against the posts which were sanctioned and were lying vacant, but they are being discriminated in the matter of grant of minimum revised pay scale of the post which was directed to be granted to them way back in the year 2000 by the M.P. Administrative Tribunal, therefore, they are required to approach this Court by way of filing this writ petition. It is contended that when for a long period, the petitioners were not regularised or were not given the regular pay scale, different Original Applications were filed before the M.P. Administrative Tribunal. The said Original Application was registered as Original Application No.870/1999. In case of others Original Application No.869/1999 was filed. The said cases came up for hearing before the Tribunal on 15.12.2000. Considering the law laid down by the Tribunal in the case of Bharat Darshan Shrivastava and others Vs. State of M.P. And others,1998 MPLSR 278],the Tribunal categorically held that persons like petitioners could not be discriminated in the matter of grant of pay as they would be entitled to the minimum of the pay scale of the post against which they were working, along with all applicable allowances, but without benefit of increments. It is contended that such an order of the Tribunal had attained the finality. Accordingly, the petitioners were being paid the salary and allowances in the minimum of the pay scale as recommended by the Fifth Pay Commission, which were duly accepted by the State Government. The order passed by the Tribunal was not called in question, on the other hand, the same was complied with.

(3.) It is contended that now since there is a revision of the pay on account of accepting the recommendation of the Sixth Pay Commission by the State Government, the petitioners would also get the monetary benefits in the minimum of the pay scale as revised by Sixth Pay Commission, duly accepted by the State Government and the allowances, sanctioned for the post against which the petitioners are working. However, despite making a demand such a benefit is not extended to the petitioners, therefore, they have come before this Court by way of filing this writ petition. The relief claimed by the petitioners in the writ petition is simply to grant the benefit of the order passed by the Tribunal with respect to the payment of wages on the minimum of the pay scale sanctioned for the post as revised under the recommendation of the Sixth Pay Commission and to pay the arrears of salary from the date, the said recommendation of Sixth Pay Commission was accepted by the State Government.