LAWS(MPH)-2017-12-151

SAMPURNANAND MISHRA Vs. URBAN ADMINISTRATION AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT

Decided On December 12, 2017
Sampurnanand Mishra Appellant
V/S
Urban Administration And Development Department Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has preferred the present petition for review of order dated 01.08.2017 passed in Writ Appeal No.204/2017 whereby the writ appeal filed against the order of dismissing his petition for granting Time Pay Scale (Karmonnati) of Rs.8000-275-13500 was dismissed by this Court on the ground that the Circulars issued by the Urban Administration Department are not applicable to the petitioner as un-disputedly, he is an employee of the State Government and not of any local body.

(2.) The sole contention of the petitioner is that Circular dated 25.04.2000 (Annexure P/4) provides Karmonnati Pay Scale of Rs.8000-275-13500 for CMO 'C' Grade for the corresponding earlier pay scale of 5500-175-9000. By circular dated 26.03.2002 (Annexure P/4) a Clause 3(A) was added without omitting or deleting Clause 3 of earlier Circular dated 25.04.2000. Though this Clause 3 (A) provides Karmonnati Pay Scale of Rs.6500-200-10500 to the corresponding earlier pay scale of 5500-175-9000, but this circular does not affect his right as in circular dated 25.04.2000 specific provisions were made for CMO "C" Grade and corresponding pay scale of 8000-275-13500 were specifically mentioned for the corresponding Pay Scale of 5500-175-9000 and also as Clause 3 of Circular Dated 25.04.2000 is not omitted or deleted by Circular dated 26.03.2002. Therefore, it is averred by the petitioner that even after insertion of Clause 3(A) vide Circular dated 26.03.2002, he is entitled for the Pay Scale of 8000-275-13500 which is the corresponding Pay Scale of his earlier pay scale of 5500- 175-9000.

(3.) It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the error is apparent from the record as even after accepting the plea of the petitioner that Clause 3(A) of Circular dated 26.03.2002 was addition and not substitution of Clause 3 of Circular dated 25.04.2000, the Court has refused to grant him relief for which he was entitled for.