Madhya Pradesh High Court
Dr Praveen Kumar Khare vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 22 March, 2022
Author: Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari
Bench: Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI
ON THE 22nd OF MARCH, 2022
WRIT PETITION No. 12510 of 2017
Between:-
DR PRAVEEN KUMAR KHARE S/O SHRI SHYAM
SWAROOP KHARE , AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: ENGINEER, MPEB 13/459, MADHURI
SADAN, ARJUN NAGAR, AMAHIYA (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(SHRI ANIL LALA, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH THE
SECRETARY ELECTRITY DEPT. MANTRALAYA,
VALLABH BHAWAN (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. THR. CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER MADHYA
PRADESH POORVA KHETRA VIDYUT VITRAN
COMPANY LTD. JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR MADHYA PRADESH
POORVA KHETRA VIDYUT VITRAN COMPANY
L T D . SHAKTI BHAWAN RAMPUR JABALPUR
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(SHRI ADITYA KHANDEKAR, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE
RESPONDENTS NO.2 AND 3)
This petition coming on for admission on this day, the court passed the
following:
ORDER
Heard finally with the consent of both the parties.
Right to file reply by the respondents was closed by order dated 25.2.2019, therefore, this Court is proceeding to hear the matter finally without reply.
By filing this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has assailed the legality, validity and propriety of the order dated 30.11.2015 passed by the respondent no.2, annexure P/10, whereby the claim of the petitioner for grant of benefit of two advance increments in pursuance to the policy of the Board dated 14.3.1984 has been rejected on the ground that the Ph.D. Signature Not Verified SAN obtained by the petitioner was not related to the activities of the post held by the Digitally signed by HEMANT SARAF Date: 2022.03.23 13:38:52 IST petitioner.
2Brief facts leading to filing of this case are that the petitioner was initially appointed in the year 1987. While in service he obtained Ph.D. decree in the subject "Social Economic Status of Labour Working in the M.P.E.B. Rewa Division (A Sociological survey)". According to the standing Order dated 14.3.1984, an employee who acquires the qualification as mandated therein shall be eligible for the benefit of one/two advance increments provided the subject is related to the activities of the Board. Accordingly, the petitioner applied for the aforesaid benefit vide application dated 17.10.1997, annexure P/3. Since no order was passed, the petitioner was compelled to move this Court in W.P.No.5000/1997. While deciding the writ petition vide order dated 31.10.2006, the Court passed the following order :-
"It may be seen that the subject in which the petitioner is granted the degree of Doctor of Philosophy itself indicates that the subject was related to the activities of the Board. The subject is with regard to financial and social condition of workers employed by the Respondent Board in its Rewa Division. Apparently, the subject as such has the nexus with the activities of the Board and, therefore, the petitioner cannot be deprived of the benefit of one/two advance increments in terms to the policy as enumerated in the order dated 14.3.84 which is Annexure P/5 to the petition.
Accordingly the present petition is allowed and respondents are directed to give benefit of one/two advance increments to the petitioner in terms to the policy dated 14.3.84 (Annexure P/5) within a period of three months from the date the petitioner furnishes certified copy of this order to the Respondents.
Needless to emphasis, the respondents shall also fix basic salary of the petitioner and shall also give all monetary benefits on such fixation.
Accordingly the petition stands allowed."Signature Not Verified SAN Digitally signed by HEMANT SARAF
Thereafter, the respondents filed M.C.C.No.2921/2006 seeking review of the Date: 2022.03.23 13:38:52 IST 3 order dated 31.10.2006 passed in W.P.No.5000/1997. The said M.C.C. was dismissed vide order dated 15.12.2006. Again the respondents preferred M.C.C.No.592/2007 seeking extension of time to comply with the order passed in W.P.No.5000/1997. Vide order dated 23.2.2007, the application for extension of time was allowed and a period of two months was extended from the date of order. After much delay, the respondents challenged the order passed in W.P.No.5000/1997 in Writ Appeal No.16/2007. The writ appeal was disposed of finally vide order dated 12.8.2015 whereby the appeal was allowed by setting aside the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge with a liberty to the respondents/petitioner therein to challenge the decision taken by the appropriate authority on the proposal for grant of additional increments to the respondent.
Since the respondent did not communicate the impugned order dated 30.11.2015 to the petitioner, the petitioner preferred a Contempt Petition No.1998/2015. In the aforesaid contempt petition, the respondents filed the impugned order dated 30.11.2015 along with the reply and, therefore, the contempt petition was disposed of.
Being aggrieved by the impugned order, the present writ petition has been filed.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondents have erred in passing the impugned order since the issue with regard to the subject having nexus with the activity of the Board was subject matter of W.P.No.5000/1997 in which this Court had specifically held that the degree of Doctor of Philosophy itself indicates that the subject relates to the activities of the Board. In spite of the aforesaid finding, which was not disturbed up to the appellate stage, the impugned order dated 30.11.2015 deserves to be set aside.
Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents vehemently opposed the prayer and supported the impugned order. He submitted that the present writ petition has been filed after the delay of one year since the impugned order was communicated to the petitioner through the reply filed in Contempt Signature Not Verified Petition on 16.2.2016 whereas this petition has been filed on 16.8.2017. He further SAN Digitally signed by HEMANT SARAF submitted that the petition deserves to be dismissed.
Date: 2022.03.23 13:38:52 ISTHeard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
4It is not in dispute that as per the Standing Order dated 14.3.1984, an employee who obtains the qualification of Ph.D. while in service would be entitled for one/two advance increments. On perusal of the certificate of Doctor of Philosophy it can be seen that the petitioner had obtained the Ph.D. doctorate in the subject "Social Economic Status of Labour Working in the M.P.E.B. Rewa Division (A Sociological survey)", which goes to indicate that the subject was related to the activity of the Board. Also looking to the fact that none of the courts in earlier round of litigation had disturbed the finding, the impugned order dated 30.11.2015 cannot be allowed to stand. Accordingly, the same is hereby set aside. The respondents are directed to grant the benefit of one/two advance increments as per the Standing Order dated 14.3.1984 to the petitioner from the date of application, i.e. 17.10.1997, as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of three months.
Needless to emphasis, the respondents shall also fix basic salary of the petitioner and shall also give all monetary benefits on such fixation.
(S. A. DHARMADHIKARI) JUDGE HS Signature Not Verified SAN Digitally signed by HEMANT SARAF Date: 2022.03.23 13:38:52 IST