MARKANDEY Vs. M.P. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both the writ petitions are heard analogusly and are decided by this common order as the question involve is similar in nature.

(2.) The petitioner has filed the present petition challenging the order dated 18/08/2017 and 19/06/2017 passed by respondent No.2 whereby rejecting the representation of the petitioner for extending the benefit of regular pay-scale from the date of petitioner's entitlement i.e. on completion of period of 5 years.

(3.) The petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Waterman on 28/02/1992 and continued on the said post. The petitioner was appointed as contingency employee but after expiry of the period of 5 years, the contingency pay-scale has not been given to the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted the representation to the respondent for grant of regular pay-scale but the said benefit has not been extended to the petitioner. The petitioner thereafter filed writ petition No.3412/2014 (S) before this Court, which was disposed of vide order dated 02/05/2014 in light of the judgment rendered by this Court in W.P. No.4327/201 (S) decided on 26/08/2010 and in W.A. No.359/201 passed on 10/04/2014.