Madhya Pradesh High Court
Pradeep Kumar Saxena vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 3 July, 2017
WP-3943-2017
(PRADEEP KUMAR SAXENA Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
03-07-2017
Shri Abhishek Sharma, Advocate for petitioner.
Shri Vijay Sundaram, Panel Lawyer for respondents/State on
advance copy.
Petitioner serving as Assistant Engineer had approached this Court earlier by filing writ petition No.7216/2015 seeking decision on his claim to accord him financial benefits for the period w.e.f.26/5/2010 to 20/10/2011 on the post of Draftsman. The aforesaid claim is based on a direction issued by the Court while deciding writ petition No.4500/2005 vide order dated 26/11/2009, wherein direction was issued to hold a review DPC for considering the case of the petitioner for the said post within six months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order and in case the petitioner was found eligible for promotion, he was also declared for notional fixation of salary, seniority and all other consequential service benefits except back wages.
It appears that the review DPC was convened on 20/10/2011 and the petitioner has been extended the promotional benefits w.e.f.6/4/1998, benefit of notional fixation of salary from 6/4/1998 on the promoted post of Draftsman and all the annual increments on the pay scale of Draftsman were added from 6/4/1998 till 2011.
Petitioner submits that since review DPC was not convened within six months from the date of passage of the aforesaid order, i.e. on or before 26/5/2010, hence, he is entitled for actual financial benefits for the aforesaid period, as claimed.
Heard.
In the opinion of this Court, respondents have complied with the order and accorded him benefits as ordered on 26/11/2009. Merely for the reason that the review DPC was convened belatedly, though not unreasonably delayed, no claim has accrued to the petitioner for being given the financial benefits for the period claimed. In State administration as approvals of authorities at different levels of administrative hierarchy are required for the purpose of convening of review DPC leading to administrative hiccups, no right can be said to have been accrued to the petitioner to claim such financial benefits. Consequently, in the opinion of this Court, writ petition sans merit and is hereby dismissed.
(ROHIT ARYA) JUDGE Arun*