RAM NARESH RAWAT versus SRI ASHWINI RAY & ORS.

Citation: [2016] 9 S.C.R. 141 · Decided: 15-12-2016 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.K. SIKRI · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2016]9S.C.R.141 
RAM NARESH RAWAT 
v. 
SRI ASHWINI RAY & ORS. 
(Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 771 of2015) 
IN 
(Special Leave Petition (C) No.'25284of2012) 
DECEMBER 15, 2016 
(A. K. SIKRI AND N.V. RAMANA, JJ.] 
Service law: 
Madhya Pradesh Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) 
Act, I961 - ss. 63(c), 21(1), 3(c) - Madhya Pradesh Industrial 
Employment (Standing Orders) Rules, 1963 - Fixation of pay in the 
regular pay scale - Entitlement to increments - Classification of 
. petitioners-daily wage employees as 'permanent employees' by 
standing order - Thereafter. petitioners sought pay scale attached 
to the said posts - Claim allowed by the courts below as also this 
Court - However. fixation of the pay at the minimum of the regular 
pay-scale attached to the respective posts - Contempt petition by 
the petitioners that the pay fixation not as per the order of this 
. 
__, 
Court - Petitioners sought fixation of pay in the regular pay scale 
as also increments and other emoluments attached to the said post 
- Held: Though a 'per111anent e111ployee' has right to receive pay in 
the graded pay-scale, at the same time, he would be getting only 
minimum of the said.pay-scale with no increments - Only the 
regularisation in service which would entail grant of increments 
etc. in the pay-scale - In some cases the State Government while 
fixing the pay scale, granted increments as well, however. the benefit 
wrongly given, would not form the b·asis of claiming the same 
relief - Right to equality u!Art. 14 is not in negative terms -
Constitution of India - Article 14. 
Dismissing the contempt petitions, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 Though a 'permanent employee' has right to 
receive pay in the graded pay-scale, at the same time, he woul( · 
be getting only minimum of the said pay-scale with no increments. 
141 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
\ 
142 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2016] 9 S.C.R. 
A It is only the regularisation in service which would entail grant of 
increments etc. in the pay-scale. [Para 23] [161-H; 162-A] 
B 
c 
State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi (2006) 4 SCC 1: 2006 
(3) SCR 953 - relied on. 
1.2 Section 3(c) of the Madhya Pradesh Industrial 
Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1961 defines "Standing 
Orders" and as per Section 6, the State Government may, by 
notification, apply Standard Standing Orders to such class of 
undertakings and from such date as may be specified therein. 
Section 21 empowers the State Government to make rules to 
carry out the purposes of the said Act which are required to be 
notified. It empowers the State Government to frame Standard 
Standing Orders as well. It is in exercise of powers under Section 
21(1) of the Act that the State Government has framed Madhya 
Pradesh Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Rules, 1963. 
Annexure to these Rules contains standard Standing Orders for 
D all undertakings in the State. Standing Order No. 2 of this Order 
enumerates classification of employees. As per this classification, 
an employee would be known as 'permanent employee' who has 
completed six months' satisfactory service in a clear vacancy in 
E 
F 
one or more posts whether on probation or otherwise or a person 
whose name has been entered in the muster roll and who is given 
a ticket of 'permanent employee'. It follows that merely by putting 
in six months' satisfactory service, an employee can be treated 
as 'permanent employee'. Rights which would flow to different 
categories of employees including 'permanent employee' are not 
stipulated in these Rules or even in the parent Act. It can be 
gathered from Rule 11 of the said Rules, which relates to 
termination of employment, that in case of a 'permanent 
employee' one month's notice or wages for one month in lieu of 
notice is required when the employment of a 'permanent 
employee' is to be terminated. On the other hand, no such notice 
G or wages in lieu thereof is needed to be given to any other 
category of employees. Additional obligation casts on the 
employer is to record reasons for termination of service in writing 
and communicate tile same to the employee. [Para 16] [156-E-
H; 157-A-C] 
H 
1.3 The answer as to whether the employee, on getting the 
RAM NARESH RAWAT v. SRI ASHWINI RAY & ORS. 
designation of 'permanent employee' can be treated as 'regular' 
employee does not flow from the reading of the Standing Orders 
Act and Rules. In common parlance, .normally, a person who is 
known as 'permanent employee' would be treated as a r

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.