SANTOSH MISHRA Vs. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioners have prayed for following reliefs:-

(2.) This is third round of litigation by the petitioners. Initially, petitioners raised an industrial dispute for grant of special allowance and other benefits. The Labour Court after proceeding to some extent opined that the said dispute raised by petitioners in their individual capacity does fall within the ambit of individual dispute as defined in Section 2A of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short ID Act). Thus, the petitioners filed WP No.5505/2014 before this court for the said grievance. This Court by order dated 3.4.2014 disposed of the said petition by directing the respondents to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner. In turn, the petitioners preferred the representation dated 16.4.2014 Annexure P/12 which was rejected by impugned order dated 21.5.2014. Shri Sanjay Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioners have worked continuously for more than one decade. Their payments have been made on the basis of collectorate rate. To bolster aforesaid contention, reliance is placed on the affidavit Annexure P/8 dated 13.9.2012. In this affidavit Shri V.D. Sharma, Dy. Director(Fisheries Deptt.), District Sana deposed before Labour Court that wages were paid to the petitioners on collectorate rate. Thus, first limb of argument of learned counsel for the petitioners is that their categorical pleading about their continuous working for more than one decade is denied by the respondents. The respondents who are custodian of record, have filed any document to show that petitioners have continuously worked or they have been engaged intermittently or on contingency basis. It is further argued that the petitioners have been paid salary continuously. This specific pleading has been denied by the respondents. As per Rule 2(c) of Madhya Pradesh (Work-charged and Contingency Paid Employees Pension) Rules, 1979 which are statutory in nature, the petitioners are have acquired the status of permanent employees after having rendered more than ten years service. Under a deeming provision, petitioners have acquired the status of permanent employee. The respondents are bound to extend the benefit of Madhya Pradesh Dainik Vetan Bhogi (Seva Shartein) Niyam, 2013. Reliance is also placed on a circular of GAD dated 7.10.2016 to contend that even for daily rated employees, the Government has decided to fix pay-scale and other benefits. Thus, first limb of argument of Shri Sanjay Verma is that for all practical purpose petitioners should be treated as daily rated employees. In that event, they are entitled to get special allowance after completion of stipulated years of service. In addition, after having rendered continuous service for more than few decades they are entitled to be considered for regualrisation. Alternative argument is that if the respondents are treating the petitioners as employees on contingency basis and their salary is being paid from contingency fund, the petitioners should be treated as work-charge employees and in that event after having rendered ten years service they have acquired the status of a deemed permanent employee. Lastly, Shri Verma submits that in view of recent judgment of Supreme Court reported in 2017 (1) SCC 148 (State of Punjab v. Jagjit Singh) the respondents are bound to pay atleast minimum of the pay-scale to the petitioners.

(3.) Per contra, Shri Sudeep Chatterjee, learned Government Advocate for the State opposed the said contention by placing reliance on the return. He submits that petitioners are daily rated employees. They are being paid from contingency fund but they are appointed as daily rated employees. The petitioners failed to produce any appointment order. The petitioners are entitled to enjoy special allowance or other benefits flowing from the circular of the State Government.