Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ku.Chhotibai Kumre vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 5 January, 2015
W.P.No.84/2007(S)
05.01.2015
Shri Anurag Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Anubhav Jain, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondents.
Heard finally with the consent of learned counsel for the parties.
The only grievance of the petitioner is that though she was given an order of promotion on 30.6.1993, but was not given the benefit of such promotional post though was performing the duty on that post. It is the contention of the petitioner that the entries in the service book of the petitioner were made, yet the benefit of promotion was not extended in full to her by fixing her salary in the pay scale applicable to the promotional post.
Upon service of the notice of the writ petition, a short reply is filed by the respondents stating that the petitioner though was promoted on 30.6.1993, but she was reverted back vide order dated 15.7.1994, and accordingly, she was not entitled to benefit of promotion. However, the order of reversion of the petitioner was not found in the records and, therefore, the same was not produced along with the return. A memo was issued to the concerning employees asking their explanation in respect of the missing file in which the order of reversion of the petitioner was passed. The other stand taken by the respondents is that the petitioner was shown in the list of Lower Division Clerk, even in the year 1994, which position was not disputed by her and, as such, she was not to be treated as promoted on the next higher post and was not to be given any benefit. The fact that the petitioner was made to work on the promotional post was not disputed.
If a regular promotion order is issued after a consideration by the Departmental Promotion Committee, the said order can be recalled or cancelled only if an error is pointed out in such consideration, after reviewing by the Departmental Promotion Committee. Nothing is said in this respect. The fact as has been stated in the return is that there was an order of reversion of the petitioner. However, again it is not clarified as to what was the reason of reversion of the petitioner whether by way of punishment or because of erroneous promotion. In any case, such a stand of the respondents cannot be accepted. If the petitioner is made to work on the post of Assistant Grade-I, she would be entitled to the grant of benefit of the said working by making payment of salary on the pay scale applicable to the promotional post.
In view of the aforesaid, rejecting the stand taken by the respondents, the writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to revise and refix the salary of the petitioner on the post on which she was promoted vide order dated 30.6.1993 and to make payment of entire arrears of salary to the petitioner within four months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order passed today. Needless to say, if revision of pay scale has taken place in between, the petitioner would be entitled to the benefit of such revised pay scale on the promotional post.
The writ petition stands allowed and disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
(K.K.Trivedi) Judge A.Praj.