The High Court observed that the 10 P a g e ministerial employees were entitled to the payment of ad hoc increase to be added to the basic pay but they cannot claim the higher pay scale which was granted to the Executive Force.
The Tribunal held that P.N. Tripathi was entitled to get the ad hoc increase of pay of Rs.70/ for fixation of pay as per Rule 7 1 b iv of the M.P. Revision of Pay Rules, 1983.
However, their emoluments companytinued to be different from that of the Executive Force in the Police Department.
The interpretation of the Rules of 1983 sought to be placed by the Police does number appeal to us.
1st April, 1981 to all the employees working in the Executive Ministerial Force.
Excess payment made due to the faulty fixation of higher pay scale in favour of Ministerial employees was sought to be recovered by a proceeding dated 22nd July, 2006.
The main companytention of the Appellants is that they have become members of the Police Force as per the Memorandum dated 5th November, 1967.
The Writ Petitions were dismissed by the learned Single Judge of the Madhya Pradesh High Court on 18 th July, 2007.
Likewise, Ministerial employees in the categories of LDC, UDC and Stenographer were re designated as Assistant Sub Inspector M , Sub Inspector M and Subedar M .
The Order passed by the Tribunal in the Review Application filed by the State Government in Gopal Krishna Duraphes case was relied upon by the High Court to reject the relief claimed by the Appellants.
The Appellants urge that there can be numberdifference between Ministerial employees and members of the Executive Force as they were also provided with facilities 13 P a g e like Uniform Grant and Uniform Maintenance Allowance by the Memorandum dated 5th November, 1967 and there was re designation of their posts.
A Peon Farash was given the rank of Constable M , Daftari Jamadar was given the rank of Head Constable M .
The Order dated 17th November, 2001 in the Review Application filed by the Government in Duraphes case makes it clear that there was numberrelief claimed by either Mr. Tripathi or Mr. Duraphe for being placed in the higher pay scale.
Recovery of excess amounts paid due to wrong fixation on the revision of pay scales was upheld by the High Court.
These Appeals have been filed against the judgment of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur, by which the claim of parity of pay scales made by the Ministerial employees of the Police Department in the State of Madhya Pradesh was number accepted.
It was categorically mentioned in the Memorandum dated 5th November, 1967 that the Ministerial employees will companytinue to draw the same emoluments even after the enrolment under the Police Act, 1861.
It was held that the request of the Appellants for equal pay companyld number be accepted as the recruitment process for the employees of the Executive and Ministerial staff is different, the qualifications for appointment to Executive and Ministerial posts are number the same, and the duties 12 P a g e that are discharged by them are also number similar.
However, the pay scale of such employees shall number be increased.
By a letter dated 22nd February, 2001, the Government of Madhya Pradesh informed the Director General of Police that the earlier order by which the benefit of Rs.50/ , Rs.60/ and Rs.70/ ad hoc increment in the Chaudhary Pay Scales given to the Executive M employees was deferred till further orders.
The Executive employees were given the benefit of the next higher pay scale to the companyresponding revised pay scale in the Rules which benefit was number given to the Ministerial E staff.
The Division Bench of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh reiterated that the Ministerial staff in the Police Department were given police ranks by the Memorandum dated 5th November, 1967.
After deciding the point of parity of pay scales against the Appellants, the High Court declared the recovery sought to be made from the Appellants for the period between 1 st January, 2000 and 17th November, 2001 as number justified.
They would, however, number be entitled to House Rent or Rent Free Accommodation and Conveyance Allowance admissible to Officers of companyresponding Ranks in the Executive branch.
He was denied the benefit of addition of ad hoc increase of Rs.70/ to his basic pay.
It is companytended that after their enrolment under the Police Act, 1861 they cannot be discriminated against in any manner.
There was a difference in pay scales between the Ministerial and Executive branches of the Police from the beginning, which can be seen from the M.P. Pay Revision Rules, 1961, popularly known as Tarachand Pay Scales.
The High Court referred to several cases filed by the Ministerial employees in the State Administrative Tribunal seeking relief of parity of pay with the members of the Executive Force in the Police Department which were transferred to the High Court on abolition of the Tribunal.
1st April, 1981.
The point pertaining to the parity of pay scales was answered against the Appellants.
We do number agree with the Appellants.
However, the emoluments of the Ministerial staff in the Police Departments were number revised.
According to the Government, the Ministerial employees though declared as police officers, companytinued to remain in the same cadre performing ministerial work with separate pay scales which are lower than that of the Executive Force.
According to the Rules, the members of the Executive Force in the Police Department were entitled to the next higher pay scale of the companyresponding revised 11 P a g e pay scale.
The Executive as well as Ministerial employees were entitled for the ad hoc increment.
The companytroversy relating to the entitlement of parity of pay scales started with the introduction of the M.P. 14 P a g e Revision of Pay Rules, 1983 w.e.f.
Following the judgment in Tripathis case, the Tribunal allowed O.A. No.45 of 1998 filed by Mr. Duraphe and directed the Respondents therein to re fix his pay in the revised pay 6 Page scale as per Table 31 of the M.P. Revision of Pay Scales, 1983 by including Rs.70/ for calculation of initial pay as per Rule 7.
The Writ Appeals filed by the Appellants were dismissed.
It was held that the new Police Ranks Ministerial created for the Ministerial staff of the Police Department by Memorandum dated 5th November, 1967 did number entitle the Ministerial employees to claim parity of pay with the members of the Executive Force in the Police Department.
They will have to satisfy with the pay scales received by the companyleagues working in other departments.
16 P a g e The Appellants relied upon the judgments of the Tribunal in the cases of Tripathi and Duraphe.
The Ministerial employees who opted to be enrolled under the Police Act, 1861 would companytinue to draw emoluments in their existing pay scales or as may be revised from time to time.
On a detailed examination of the Rules, the Division Bench of the High Court was of the opinion that there is numberdoubt that the benefit of the higher pay scale to the companyresponding pay scale in the Rules was number given to the Ministerial E employees.
The recommendation made by the Chaudhary Pay Commission which was reflected clearly in the Rules disentitles the Appellants from claiming the benefit of being given one scale higher than the companyresponding revised pay sale.
1st April, 1981.
In other words, they will number be entitled to claim the benefit of being placed in a higher pay scale which was given only to the 9 Page Executive Force.
On 14th October, 1982, the Chaudhary Pay 4 Page Commission submitted its Report in which it recommended as follows We are unable to make recommendation of the pay scales equivalent to Police Executive Force to the ministerial employees of police department.
The relief sought by both of them was to include the ad hoc increment to the basic pay.
It is relevant to mention that the State Government by an Order dated 26th 28th June, 1979 allowed ad hoc increment to number Gazetted employees of the Police Force w.e.f.
14th June, 1981.
Mr. Krishna Gopal Duraphe filed A. No.45 of 1998 seeking ad hoc increase of Rs.70/ in the basic pay as per the M.P. Revised Pay Rules, 1983.
The M.P. Revision of Pay Rules, 1983 hereinafter referred to as the 1983 Rules were brought into force on the basis of the Chaudhary Commission w.e.f.
According to the Government, the judgment of the Tribunal dated 1st January, 2000 needed to be reviewed because several persons of the Ministerial cadre at the 7 Page lower levels i.e. Inspector M Peon, Head Constables M , Daftari, ASI M LDC, Sub Inspector M UDC, Subedar M Auditor Stenographer were seeking the same relief.
The difference between pay scales was companytinued even as per the Faquir Chand Pay Scales in 1973.
However, recovery of emoluments made between 1 st April, 2000 and 17th November, 2001 was held to be number justified.
1st April, 1981.
While reviewing its Order dated 1 st January, 2000 in O.A. No.45 of 1998, the Tribunal observed that an unintended benefit flowed from an apparent error companymitted by the Tribunal.
Reliance was placed by the High Court on the 1983 Rules according to which the claim of the Appellants for being placed in the next higher pay scale was number possible.
On 5th November, 1967, the State Government created new Police Ranks Ministerial in the State Police Force under Section 2 of the Police Act, 1861.
The relief claimed by Mr. Duraphe was for an ad hoc increase of Rs.70/ to be added to his basic pay while fixing the pay in the revised scale of pay w.e.f.
On 25 th March, 2006, the Government of Madhya Pradesh informed the Director General of Police that the members of the Ministerial employees shall be entitled for adding the ad hoc increment of Rs.50/ , Rs.60/ and Rs.70/ for pay fixation.
were appointed 3 Page as per the provisions governed by Part III of M.P. Police Regulations.
was governed by the M.P. Police Regulations, which were framed under the Police Act, 1861.
A Constable was given Rs.50/ per month, Head Constable Rs.60/ and the Assistant Sub Inspectors, Sub Inspectors and Inspectors were given Rs.70/ per month.
The apparent error companymitted by the Tribunal while directing Mr. Duraphe to be given pay scale in accordance with Table 31 which pertains to Inspector of the Executive Force, was companyrected.
Neither the Rules number the pay fixation of the Appellants under the Rules was challenged.
Recruitment to the posts of Ministerial employees i.e. Head Clerk, Assistant Clerk, Accountant, Assistant Accountant, Record Keeper, Daftari, etc.
Leave granted.
After the judgment in Duraphes case on 1st January, 2000, a decision was taken by the Government of Madhya Pradesh to give the benefit of Rs.70/ as ad hoc increment in the Chaudhary Pay Scales w.e.f.
The High Court observed that the duties discharged by the employees in the Executive Force are more rigorous in companyparison to the employees of the Ministerial staff.
8 Page The only point that was adjudicated in both the above cases was grant of ad hoc increase of Rs.70/ for the purpose of initial pay revision.
The Ministerial employees were number entitled to the said benefit, according to the High Court.
Inspectors, Sub Inspectors, Subedars, Assistant Sub Inspectors, etc.
The Government of Madhya Pradesh was aggrieved by the operative portion of the Order passed on 1 st April, 2000 in O.A. No.45 of 1998 directing Duraphes pay to be fixed in revised pay scale as per Table No.31 of the M.P. Revision of Pay Scales Rules, 1983.
Miscellaneous Application No.218 of 2001 was filed by the State of Madhya Pradesh seeking review of the Order dated 1st April, 2000 passed by the Tribunal in A. No.45 of 1998.
They were given Uniform Grant and Uniform Maintenance Allowance in accordance with the scale prescribed for the companyresponding regular posts Executive .
The Government insisted that there was numberintention of granting pay scales to Ministerial employees on par with the Executive Force.
The Tribunal held that it never intended or ordered a higher pay scale to be given to the Ministerial employees, that too, from 1st April, 1981.
The Orders dated 25 th March, 2006 and 22nd July, 2006 were challenged by the Ministerial employees in the High Court of Madhya Pradesh.
The High Court referred to a specific companydition in the said Memorandum that even after enrolment under the Police Act, 1861, the Ministerial employees of the Police Department would companytinue to draw emoluments in the existing scale in which they were working prior to 1st April, 1981 or as may be revised from to time.
Mr. Duraphe retired as a Deputy Superintendant of Police DSP .
