Madhya Pradesh High Court
Nahar Singh Chandrawat vs Panchayat And Rural Development ... on 18 January, 2017
WP-6724-2015 (NAHAR SINGH CHANDRAWAT Vs PANCHAYAT AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT) 18-01-2017 Shri V.K. Patwari, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Yogesh Mittal, learned counsel for the respondent/State.
The petitioner preferred this petition against the order dated 19.08.2013 (Annexure P/1) & (Annexure P/2), by which the respondents refixed the pay of the petitioner and withdrawn the benefit of Time Scale and recovered the excess amount from the retiral benefits of the petitioner, whereas as per the Time Scale/Kramonnati policies issued by the State Government, on completion of 24 years service, the petitioner has became entitled for the benefit of 2nd Time Scale, but without considering the policies of the State Government, on the basis of objections taken by the respondent No.5, the respondent No.3 & 4 refixed the pay of the petitioner and withdrawn the benefit of Time Scale. The impugned orders have been passed without following the principles of the law of natural justice.
State has filed additional return, in which it is stated that the petitioner is not entitled for time scale because the same was granted to him earlier without approval of appointing authority and thereafter vide letter dated 07.01.2017, the Additional Assistant Development Commissioner has sent the file to Joint Director but his decision is still awaited. Shri Patwari, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that by Annexure P/6, the Commissioner, Directorate of Panchayat Raj, Madhya Pradesh has already clarified that those who has been granted first and second Kramonnati are also entitled for time scale and the cases are not required to be reopened. It seems that matter is being unnecessarily delayed. That in view of Annexure P/6, no such approval is necessary and cases in which first and second kramonnati has been granted, these cases are not required to be reopened.
Despite opportunity, no para-wise reply has been filed by the respondent and both the time the right has been reserved to file the para-wise reply. It is expected from the office of Advocate General to file para-wise reply at first instance.
In view of Annexure P/6, the impugned order Annexure P/1 dated 19.08.2013 is quashed. The benefit of time scale be given to the petitioner along with all consequential benefit with interest @ 8 %. Petition is allowed.
(VIVEK RUSIA) JUDGE