Time Keepers in Work Charged Establishments are Entitled to Pay Parity With Amins Based on Judicial Precedent.

The petitioner was appointed as a Time Keeper in the Public Works Department in 1972 and retired on 30.04.2010 from the Work Charged and Contingency establishment.

Post-retirement, the petitioner alleged he was wrongly placed in lower pay scales (Rs. 445-635, Rs. 825-1220, and Rs. 2750-4400) instead of the higher scales (Rs. 515-800, Rs. 950-1530, and Rs. 3050-4590) applicable to similarly situated employees.

Following a previous High Court direction in W.P. No. 19158/2016 to consider his claim in light of A.L. Thakur v. State of M.P., the Respondent No. 3 (Executive Engineer) rejected his representation via the impugned order dated 09.05.2017.

The petitioner subsequently filed this writ petition seeking quashment of the rejection and parity in pay scales based on the principle of "equal pay for equal work".

1. Whether the petitioner, as a Time Keeper, is entitled to the higher pay scales (culminating in Rs. 3050-4590) at par with the post of Amin based on the principle of parity and judicial precedents.

2. Whether the rejection order dated 09.05.2017 is sustainable in view of the finality reached in similar litigations involving the same cadre.

The Court applied the principle of parity under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, emphasizing that identically situated employees cannot be treated differently.

The Court primarily relied on the precedent set in A.L. Thakur v. State of M.P. (W.P. No. 16054/2003), which granted higher pay scales to Time Keepers.

The Court also shifts focus to the binding nature of R.K. Lakhera v. State of M.P. and Eshwar Singh Rajpoot v. State of M.P., noting that the controversy regarding these specific pay scales for this cadre had reached finality after being upheld by the Division Bench and the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

The Court examined the conflicting views presented by the parties. The State argued that Time Keepers belong to the Work Charged Establishment and have different recruitment rules and qualifications compared to the post of Amin, citing a contrary view in Babulal Pachori v. State of M.P. (2024).

The Court observed that the specific grievance regarding the pay scale of Rs. 3050-4590 for Time Keepers had already been litigated extensively.

The Court highlighted that in cases like R.K. Lakhera and Eshwar Singh Rajpoot, the High Court and the Apex Court had consistently upheld the entitlement to the higher pay scale.

The Court reasoned that once a legal controversy involving the same cadre is put to rest by the Supreme Court, the State cannot maintain two sets of employees within the same cadre receiving different pay scales.

Consequently, the Court found no reason to deviate from the established precedent in A.L. Thakur.

It held that the petitioner is entitled to parity with similarly situated employees who received the benefit of the higher pay scale.

The Court quashed the impugned order dated 09.05.2017 and directed the respondents to provide the petitioner with the pay scale of Rs. 3050-4590 from the due date, along with all consequential benefits, within a period of two months.