Madhya Pradesh High Court
State Of M.P. And Another vs Shankar Lal Sahu And Another on 24 November, 2000
Equivalent citations: 2001(2)MPHT19
Author: A.K. Mishra
Bench: A.K. Mishra
ORDER A.K. Mishra, J.
1. State is aggrieved by the decision of State Administrative Tribunal passed in O.A. No. 622/98 on 13-1-2000.
2. The respondent No. 1 was involved in a criminal case under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, IPC read with Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act and Sections 5(1)(d) and 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The proceedings were quashed in Criminal Revision by this Court and the respondent No. 1 was exonerated. The respondent No. 1 was under the suspension. He was reinstated vide order dated 26-6-89. In the meantime during the period of suspension and reinstatement DPC was convened. As the case was pending against the respondent No. 1, the recommendations were kept in the sealed cover and his junior namely Shri K.P. Dwivedi came to be promoted from the post of Food Inspector to the post of Assistant Food Officer w.e.f. 5-4-84. State of M.P. did not open the sealed cover for about 4 years and after it was opened the respondent No. 1 was promoted as Assistant Food Officer as per the recommendations contained in sealed cover vide order dated 10-2-93. It appears that the respondent No. 1 made several repre-
sentations to give him promotion retrospectively from the dale on which his junior Shri K.P. Dwivedi was promoted and also to decide about the period of suspension. The promotion of the respondent No. 1 was ordered retrospectively w.e.f. 5-4-84, hut, State refused to pay the arrears on the basis of principle of "No work no pay".
3. It also transpires that the State of M.P. did not consider the case of respondent No. 1 for further promotion to the post of Food Officer whereas his junior Shri K.P. Dwivedi was promoted w.e.f. 29-10-92. Therefore, the respondent No. 1 filed application before the Tribunal for grant of relief of arrears of pay w.e.f. 5-4-84 the date of promotion of his junior Shri K.P. Dwivedi to 10-2-93 and also prayed for consideration for further promotion as Food Officer w.e.f. 29-10-92.
4. The State Administrative Tribunal allowed the application and directed the arrears of pay to be paid within a period of four months w.e.f. the date the respondent was found fit for promotion i.e., 5-4-84 and also directed to convene the review DPC so as to consider the case of the applicant as Food Officer w.e.f. the date 29-10-92. Shri K.P. Dwivedi, junior to respondent No. 1 was promoted and in case he is found fit to grant all consequential benefits. This order has been assailed.
5. It may be seen that it was incumbent upon the petitioner to have opened the sealed cover immediately after this Court had quashed the proceedings and exonerated the respondent No. 1. In spite of the fact that he was reinstated on 26-6-89 matter was kept pending for 3 years and 8 months for opening the sealed cover and giving it the effect. The action of State of M.P. was clearly unjust in delaying the matter. It appears that the respondent No. 1 was found fit by the DPC, but, the sealed cover proceedings were resorted to. The respondent No. 1 has been totally exonerated. Nothing has been found against him. Thus, it appears that the respondent No. 1 was illegally deprived of his promotion. Thus, we find no error in the directions issued by the Tribunal of giving arrears of pay w.e.f. 5-4-84, the dale on which junior of respondent No. 1 namely; Shri K.P. Dwivedi was promoted and respondent was also found fit by DPC for promotion. The State of M.P. has dropped all the disciplinary action and no further action was taken. In case of Union of India Vs. K.V. Jankiraman, AIR 1991 SC 2010, the Apex Court has laid down that "No Work No Pay" is not applicable in the case when an employee could not be promoted because of pending disciplinary action against him in which he is exonerated later on and promoted retrospectively from the date on which he was entitled. Same is the situation obtainable in the present case. In view of the decision of the Apex Court in case of Union of India Vs. K.V. Jankiraman (supra) the respondent No. 1 has been rightly awarded the arrears of pay.
6. We also find no infirmity in the direction to convene the review DPC so as to consider the case of the respondent No. 1 for promotion to the post of Food Officer as his junior was promoted on 29-10-92 and the case of the respondent No. 1 was not considered. As his claim of retrospective seniority was itself decided subsequently by the Government on 10-2-93 when respondent No. 1 was granted retrospective promotion w.e.f. the date on which his junior Shri K.P. Dwivedi was promoted as Assistant Food Officer, it was incumbent upon the State of M.P. to have considered the case of the respondent No. 1 to next higher post.
7. The directions of the Tribunal should be complied with within a period of four months from the date of this order.
8. The writ petition is dismissed. Parties are directed to bear their own costs.
9. Writ Petition dismissed.