RAMBABU PRAJAPATI Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) LEARNED counsel for the parties contended that the matters are similar and may be heard and decided by a common order. Therefore, these matters were analogously heard on the joint request of parties. Facts are taken from WP. 6853/2011

(2.) THE petitioner contended that he was initially appointed as a daily wager but after rendering service for quite some time, he was classified as permanent employee. The said order is filed as Annexure P/2. The singular contention advanced is that despite classifying the petitioner as permanent employee, the respondents are not paying him the regular pay scale.

(3.) SHRI Shashank Indapurkar submits that this matter is covered by the judgment of this Court passed in WP No. 595/2010 dated 29.07.2010. The judgment of WP No. 595/2010 was unsuccessfully challenged in Supreme Court.