Madhya Pradesh High Court
Dr. Kiran Shankar Bhatt vs Smt. Vijaya Shrivastava on 13 July, 2010
13.07.2010.
Shri Sanjay K. Agrawal and Shri Amit Seth for the applicant.
Shri Rajesh Tiwari, Government Advocate, for the non-
applicants.
Complaining disobedience of an order passed by this Court
on 15.1.2009, in W.P.No.3505/2007(s), applicant has filed this
application.
Applicant had filed the aforesaid petition claiming promotion
on the post of Ayurved Chikitsa Adhikari with effect from the date
his juniors were promoted. It is the case of the applicant that in the
order passed by this Court on 15.1.2009, the directions issued were
to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion and grant him
promotion on the post of Ayurved Chikitsa Adhikari with effect
from the date his juniors were promoted and if found fit for
promotion, benefit be granted to the petitioner within a period of
four months. The order passed by this Court reads as under:
".... In that view of the matter finding the reasons given by
the respondents for non consideration of the case of the
petitioner for promotion to the post of Ayurvedic Chikitsa Adhikari.to be unsustainable, this petition is allowed. Respondents are directed to consider the claim of the petitioner for granting promotion on the post of Ayurvedic Chikitsa Adhikari w.e.f. the date his juniors were promoted and if found fit for promotion, benefits be granted to the petitioner within a period of four months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
Petition stands allowed and disposed of accordingly."
Initially, when the contempt application was filed, promotion was not granted to the applicant. However, during the pendency of 2 the contempt application vide order-dated 29.6.2010 - Annexure R/1, applicant is granted promotion retrospectively with effect from the date it was granted to his juniors. The actual benefit of salary is not extended to him and the promotion is made effective from the date of issuance. Contending that when direction was to give promotion from the date it was granted to his juniors with all benefits, applicant submits that there is still dis-obedience of the order and, therefore, action be taken.
Non-applicants have only stated that they have issued the order of promotion and, therefore, now nothing further remains to be done.
This Court while deciding the writ petition has clearly found that the reasons given by the non-applicants for not considering the case of the applicant for promotion on the post of Ayurved Chikitsa Adhikari is unsustainable and, therefore, the petition was allowed and non-applicants were directed to grant promotion to the applicant, if found fit with effect from the date his juniors were promoted and benefits were to be granted to the applicant. Once applicant is found fit for promotion, non-applicants could not deny consequential benefits to him merely because he has not worked. When this Court directed for grant of promotion with benefits, the meaning is 'benefit at par with the juniors', which includes 'arrears of salary'. This having not been done, the order has not been complied with in its totality.
The Supreme Court also in the case of State of Kerala and others Vs. E.K. Bhaskaran Pillai, 2007(6) SCC 524, has held that when promotion is not granted due to fault of the Department, an 3 employee is entitled to salary for the intervening period. Similar views have been taken by a Division Bench of this Court, in the case of Brij Mohan Dwivedi Vs. State of MP, 2005(2) MPJR 307, after taking note of the principles laid down by the Supreme court in the cases of Union of India Vs. K.V. Jankiraman, AIR 1991 SC 2010; Virendra Kumar, General Manager, Northern Railways, New Delhi Vs. Avinash Chandra Chadha and others 1990 (3) SCC 472, 1990 (3) SCC 472; and, again in the case of State of Haryana and others Vs. O.P. Gupta, 1996 (7) SCC 533.
That being so, non-applicants were not right in denying the benefit of salary to the applicant when this Court had directed to grant promotion with all benefits.
However, for the present without initiating any action for contempt against the non-applicants, non-applicants are directed to extend the monetary benefits also to the applicant consequent to his promotion within a period of two months and report compliance to this Court.
Application stands disposed of for the present with the aforesaid.
Certified copy as per rules.
(RAJENDRA MENON) JUDGE Aks/-