ANNULAL DAHARIYA Vs. HIGH COURT OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been filed by the petitioners being aggrieved by orders Annexures P/1 and P/2 both dated 2.6.2016, whereby the respondent authorities have withdrawn the order passed in favour of the petitioners granting them benefit of first and second time bound increments under the scheme of the State Government dated 17-3-1999/19-4-1999 and modified by the State from time to time.

(2.) The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the impugned orders have been issued by the authorities on the ground that the petitioners were and are not entitled to count the period of contingency service rendered by them for the purposes of claiming benefit under the aforesaid scheme. The learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that this issue has already been considered by this Court in several cases and similarly placed employees have been granted relief. It is submitted that in such circumstances, the respondent authorities were bound to consider the period of contingency service rendered by the petitioners for the purposes of granting them benefit under the scheme and denial of the same amounts to discrimination and violates the fundamental rights of the petitioners under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the High Court had infact favourably recommended the case of the petitioners but the authorities of the State have not taken this relevant aspect into consideration or the fact that several similarly situated employees have already been granted the relief while rejecting the claim of the petitioners. The learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on several orders passed in identical cases in support of his submissions.