Madhya Pradesh High Court
The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Iqbal Khan Judgement Given By: Hon'Ble ... on 6 May, 2013
Author: Subhash Kakade
Bench: Subhash Kakade
[1]
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH: JABALPUR
W.A. No.233/2012
1. State of Madhya Pradesh,
Through its Principal Secretary,
Sports and Youth Welfare Department,
Mantralaya, Vallabh Bhawan,
Bhopal (M.P.)
2. Director, Sports & Youth Welfare,
Bhopal (M.P.)
.............Appellants
VERSUS
Iqbal Khan, aged about 48 years,
S/o Shri Lal Khan, Assistant Grade-I,
posted in the Directorate,
Sports and Youth Welfare,
T.T. Nagar, Bhopal (M.P.)
...... Respondent
Present: Hon. Shri Justice Krishn Kumar Lahoti,
Acting Chief Justice
Hon'ble Shri Justice Subhash Kakade
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri Jaideep Singh, Deputy Government Advocate, for the
appellants/State.
Smt. Shobha Menon, learned Senior Counsel with Shri C.A.
Thomas, for the respondent.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JUDGMENT
06.05.2013 This appeal is directed against an order dated 19.10.2011 in W.P. No.7769/2007(S), by which a writ petition preferred by the respondent, was allowed and the appellants were directed to treat the respondent as an Assistant Grade-I w.e.f. 08.05.1996 and to fix the pay of the respondent in the scale of Rs.4500-7000 w.e.f. 08.05.1996 and to give all the monetary and ancillary benefits to the respondent. The writ court further directed that the respondent be treated at par with his immediate junior Dhananjay Kumar Upadhyay, who was promoted, ignoring [2] the seniority of the respondent. This order is under challenge in this appeal.
2. Though, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that the respondent was not Accounts trained so he was given promotion on a later date, but the learned Single Judge has wrongly directed for fixing the seniority and payment of monetary benefits to the respondent. It is also submitted that two persons, who were earlier promoted namely Dhananjay Kumar Upadhyay and Nishikant Bhagwat without their passing the accounts examination, but this aspect was also not properly considered by the learned Single Judge.
3. To appreciate the aforesaid contention, it would be appropriate if the factual position in the case is stated.
The respondent, whose seniority was ignored and his juniors namely Dhananjay Kumar Upadhyay and Nishikant Bhagwat were promoted on the post of Assistant Grade-I, had challenged their promotion and for consideration of his case for the aforesaid post before the State Administrative Tribunal. The Tribunal vide its order dated 09.05.2001 in O.A. No.805/1996, Annexure P-2 along with the writ petition, allowed the Original Application filed by respondent Iqbal Khan by an order, which reads thus:-
"In view of this aforesaid admitted facts the applicant is also entitled to get similar treatment as has been given to his juniors i.e. promotion from the date his juniors were actually given promotion on the post of Assistant Gr-I. In view of this situation respondents are directed to consider the applicant for promotion on the post of Assistant Gr.I after constituting review D.P.C. on the same criteria which the D.P.C. has adopted in case of the private respondents No.3 and 4 and if found eligible to be given promotion from the date his juniors were promoted and assigning seniority to the applicant above the respondents No.3 and 4. He be given [3] all the consequential benefits of the promoted post.
With this direction case is disposes of finally."
(Emphasis supplied)
4. After the order Annexure P-2 passed by the Tribunal, the appellants had issued an order Annexure P-3 dated 31.05.2001, by which the respondent was promoted w.e.f. 08.05.1996, but declined monetary benefits on the principle of "no work no pay" for the period 08.05.1996 to 30.04.1999. In the order Annexure P-3, though the respondent was promoted w.e.f. 08.05.1996, but was denied monetary benefits between 08.05.1996 and 30.04.1999 on the principle of "no work no pay". This order was challenged before the writ Court.
5. The learned Single Judge found that the matter has already been decided by the Tribunal in O.A. No.805/1996, by which the aforesaid order was passed, so there was no question of non grant of monetary benefits to the respondent, allowed the writ petition and directed that the respondent shall be entitled to be treated as Assistant Grade-I w.e.f. 08.05.1996 and directed to fix the pay of the respondent in scale of Rs.4500-7000 w.e.f. 08.05.1996 with all consequential monetary benefits, this order is under challenge.
6. Though, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that the respondent was not Accounts trained, so he was not entitled for the monetary benefits but the aforesaid contention has already been decided by the Tribunal, which cannot be reexamined. If the appellants were aggrieved by the order passed by the Tribunal, then they ought to have challenged the order passed by the Tribunal before this Court or before the Supreme Court. But, once the order passed by the Tribunal has attained finality, the [4] respondents are bound under law to comply with the order passed by the Tribunal. Once the Tribunal had issued directions to give the promotion to the respondent w.e.f. the date on which his juniors were promoted, given seniority and all consequential benefits of the aforesaid post, then such benefits could not have been denied to the respondent. The learned Single Judge has rightly allowed the writ petition in which no fault is found.
7. In view of the aforesaid, this writ appeal is dismissed with cost which we quantify at Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand), payable by the appellants to the respondent.
(Krishn Kumar Lahoti) (Subhash Kakade)
Acting Chief Justice Judge
psm