Madhya Pradesh High Court
Water Resource Department vs Sudhir Verma on 11 November, 2020
Author: S.C.Sharma
Bench: S.C.Sharma
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT INDORE
Writ Appeal No.925/2020
(State of M. P. and Others Vs. Sudhir Verma)
-1-
Indore, dated 11/11/2020
Ms. Archana Kher, learned Deputy Advocate General for the
appellants / State.
Mr. Anand Agrawal, learned counsel for the respondent.
Heard on IA.No.2464/2020, which is an application for
condonation of delay. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, the
delay stands condoned.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
The issue involved in the present case stands concluded on
account of judgment delivered by Division Bench of this Court in Writ
Appeal No.1992/2019 (State of Madhya Pradesh and Others Vs.
Ku. Sadhana Mittal) and other connected matters. The order dated
19/10/2020 passed in aforesaid case reads as under:-
"Heard the matter through Video Conferencing.
Mr. Vivek Dalal, learned Additional Advocate General for the
appellant/State.
Mr. Anand Agrawal, learned counsel for the respondent.
Regard being had to the similitude in the controversy
involved in the present cases, the writ petitions were analogously
heard and by a common order, they are being disposed of by this
Court. Facts of Writ Petition No.1992 of 2019 are narrated
hereunder:
Heard on IA No.5560/2019 which is an application for
condonation of delay in filing the appeal. The appeal is barred by
limitation. There is a delay of 50 days in filing the appeal and the
respondents have explained the delay in paragraph 2 of the
application. Though there is an objection on behalf of learned
counsel for the respondent in respect of application for condonation
of delay, however, keeping in view the reasons mentioned in the
application, the same stands allowed. Delay in filing the appeal
stands condoned. Accordingly, IA No.5560/2019 stands disposed
of.
ORDER
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT INDORE Writ Appeal No.925/2020 (State of M. P. and Others Vs. Sudhir Verma) -2- The facts of the case reveal that the respondent before this Court has filed a writ petition being aggrieved by impugned order dated 19.07.2018 (Annexure-P/1) passed by the respondents therein and the same was registered as Writ Petition No.20518 of 2018 (Ku. Sadhana Mittal vs. State of MadhyaPradesh and Others). The facts further reveal that the respondent was initially appointed on the post of Lower Division Clerk (LDC) vide order dated 17.04.1989 and after completion of twenty years of service, the respondent was granted the second time bound pay-scale vide order dated 14.10.2010. The undisputed facts further reveal that the respondent was working on the post of Assistant Grade-III and the next higher promotional post was Assistant Grade-II. The benefit of upgradation granted to respondent was withdrawn by appellants/State without issuing any notice meaning thereby violating the principles of natural justice and fairplay. The benefit was withdrawn on the ground that the circular dated 24.01.2008 provides for holding of the qualifications required for the promotional post. Paragraph 4 of the circular dated 24.01.2008 reads as under:
bl ;kstukUrxrZ mPprj osrueku dk ykHk izkIr djus ds fy;s 'kkldh; lsod dks mu vgZrkvksa dks iw.kZ djuk gksxk tks inksUufr ds fy;s fu/kkZfjr gSA ;fn lsok HkrhZ fu;eksa ds varxZr ftl laoxZ esa inksUufr gksrh gS mldk osrueku bl ;kstuk ds vUrxZr Lohd`r mPprj osrueku ls Hkh mPprj gS rks lh/kh HkrhZ okys laoxZ dk Js.khdj.k dfu"B J.skh] ofj"B Js.kh rFkk izoj Js.kh tSlk mi;qDr gks] esa fd;k tk;sxkA ;fn bl ;kstukUrxZr ns; mPprj osrueku inksUur laoxZ ds osrueku ls mPprj gS rks bl ;kstuk vUrxZr izkIr gksus okyk mPprj osrueku O;fDrxr osru ds :i esa gh ns; gksxk vkSj blds fy;s lsok HkrhZ fu;eksa esa lh/kh HkrhZ okys laoxZ dk i`Fkd ls Js.khdj.k djus dh vko';drk ugha gksxhA The aforesaid circular makes it very clear that for grant of upgradation the employee in question is required to hold the qualification of the promotional post and in the present case as per the stand of the State Government the respondent was not fulfilling the eligibility criteria, therefore the appellants/State has withdrawn the second time bound pay-scale of respondent. The aforesaid circular is silent on the issue of grant of second Kramonatti and it says that for grant of Kramonatti, the person holding for the post should have the requisite qualification of the next promotional post.
The learned Single Judge has rightly allowed the writ petition. Paragraphs 7 and 8 of the order held as under:-
7. From perusal of the records, it reveals that the petitioner is not working on the post of Assistant Grade-
II, but she is working on the post of Assistant Grade-III and next promotion post from the post of Assistant Grade-III is the post of Assistant Grade-II, for which, eligibility criteria is five years' experience. The petitioner fulfills the said eligibility criteria and therefore, the HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT INDORE Writ Appeal No.925/2020 (State of M. P. and Others Vs. Sudhir Verma) -3- screening Committee, vide order dated 14/10/2010 has granted the benefit of time bound pay- scale to the petitioner. It is also to be noted that the said benefit has been withdrawn vide order dated 19/07/2018, without issuing any notice or giving any opportunity of hearing, which amounts to violation of principles of natural justice.
8. In light of the aforesaid, I allow the present writ petition and the impugned order dated 19/07/2018 (Annexure-P/1), so far it relates to the petitioner, is quashed. The respondents are directed to pay the benefit of second time bound pay-scale to the petitioner. In the considered opinion of this Court, the learned Single Judge has rightly allowed the writ petition as the respondent (petitioner in writ petition) was holding the qualification for next higher promotional post of Assistant Grade-II. The aforesaid facts have not been disputed by learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the Appellants/State and, therefore, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by learned Single Judge.
In light of the aforesaid, the writ appeal stands dismissed. No order as to costs."
In light of the aforesaid judgment, the present writ appeal stands dismissed.
Certified copy as per rules.
(S. C. SHARMA) (SHAILENDRA SHUKLA)
JUDGE JUDGE
Tej
Digitally signed by
Tej Prakash Vyas
Date: 2020.11.11
13:28:15 +05'30'