Madhya Pradesh High Court
The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs K.C. Bhargawa on 16 March, 2018
...1...
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Writ Appeal No.965/2017
The State of M.P. & others Vs. K.C.Bhargawa
Jabalpur, dated 16/03/2018
Mr. Pushpendra Yadav, Deputy Advocate General for the
appellants/State.
Mr. Ankit Saxena, Advocate for the respondent/writ petitioner.
I.A.No.14481/2017 The application is for condonation of delay of 14 days in filing of the present appeal.
For the reasons mentioned in the application, we are satisfied that sufficient cause is made out for condonation of delay.
In view of the said fact, I.A.No.14481/2017 is allowed. The delay is condoned.
Writ Appeal No.965/2017
Challenge in the present appeal is to an order passed by the learned Single Bench on 12.7.2017 whereby Writ Petition No.19899/2016 filed by the respondent was allowed and the appellants were directed to grant all consequential benefits to the respondent on the promoted post within 90 days.
The respondent, herein, was visited with an order of punishment of compulsory retirement on 1.11.1996. The said order was set aside by the learned Single Bench on 17.7.2012 in Writ Petition No.24146/2003. The operative part of the order reads as under:-
"14. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed. The order of penalty dated 1.11.1996 as contained in Annx. A/6 as ...2...
also the appellate order dated 7.1.1998 as contained in Annx. A/1 issued against the petitioner are hereby quashed. The petitioner be treated in service for the period of compulsory retirement and be paid the salary and allowances for the said period. The pension of the petitioner be also revised as he would have attained the age of superannuation by now and all the retiral dues be settled in favour of the petitioner, within a period of three months, from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order passed today."
Thereafter, the writ petitioner was reinstated and consequently considered for promotion after opening of the sealed cover. On the basis of the proceedings subsequent to opening of the sealed cover, the writ petitioner has been granted proforma promotion without granting financial benefits accruing to him on account of his promotion. The Learned Single Bench has set aside the said order and granted the financial benefits.
The order passed by the writ Court setting aside the order of punishment is clear and categorical that the writ petitioner be treated in service during period of compulsory retirement and is entitled for salary and allowances for the said period. The said order has attained finality. Once an employee has been found entitled for the salary and allowances for the period between the date of compulsory retirement and reinstatement, that period will include the promotion which the employee would have been entitled in the interregnum period. Once the employee is promoted, such promotion would follow all the consequential benefits of pay and allowances as well more so in terms of the order passed by this Court.
...3...
In view of the said facts, we do not find any error in the order passed by the learned Single Bench, which may warrant interference in the present intra-court appeal. Consequently, the same is dismissed.
(Hemant Gupta) (Vijay Kumar Shukla)
Chief Justice Judge
C.
Digitally signed by CHRISTOPHER PHILIP
Date: 2018.03.19 03:04:01 -07'00'