SHIVPURI GOSWAMI Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Parties through their counsel.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner Shri Manish Yadav has drawn the attention of this Court towards the judgment delivered in the case of Sunil Kumar Daya Vs. State of M.P. and others in W.P.No.3415/2014 dated 10.04.2015 which reads as under :-

(3.) In the present case, the petitioner's contention is that he was appointed as dailywager on 11.01.1990 under the Narmada Valley Development Authority, which is an instrumentality of the State of Madhya Pradesh and since then they are continuously working with the respondents. Petitioners have further stated that in case of rest of the employees respondents have granted them minimum of the pay scale as per recommendation of the 5th and 6th Pay Commission and the petitioner has enclosed Annexure P-3, which is on record dated 28.10.2010. The same reflects that as many as fourteen Writ Petitions were preferred before this court and they have been allowed and thereafter contempt petitions were preferred and because of the contempt petitions, respondents have granted the pay scale as prayed by the petitioners, therein. Petitioner's contention is that he is an identically placed person like the petitioners, whose names have been mentioned in Annexure-P-3 dated 28-10- 2010 and he is also entitled for the same relief.