Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ashok Kumar Bajpai vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 29 August, 2024
Author: Anil Verma
Bench: Anil Verma
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-GWL:14598
1 WP-2686-2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL VERMA
ON THE 29th OF AUGUST, 2024
WRIT PETITION No. 2686 of 2019
ASHOK KUMAR BAJPAI
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Alok Katare, learned counsel for the Petitioner.
Shri Dilip Awasthi learned GA for the respondents/State.
ORDER
With the consent of the parties, the matter is finally heard at the motion stage.
The present writ petition is preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief :
"(i). that, the present petition filed by the petitioner may kindly be allowed;
(ii) that, the order dated 03.01.2017 Annexure P/1 may kindly directed to be quashed and further the writ of mandamus and certiorari, may kindly be issued directing the respondents to promote the petitioner on the senior pay scale since 1.1.1995 and outstanding arrears of the same may kindly be directed to be paid along with interest at the rate of 12% and further the respondents be commanded by the issuance of the writ, order or direction to Signature Not Verified Signed by: RAM KUMAR SHARMA Signing time: 30-08-2024 05:39:52 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-GWL:14598
2 WP-2686-2019 prefix the pension and pensionary benefits of the petitioner"; Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was initially appointed to the post of Dy. Collector and joined on 13.06.1988 and vide order dated 24.04.1991 he was declared permanent w.e.f. 17.07.1990. As he had passed the departmental examination as per rules, he was entitled to promotion in the Senior Pay Scale as he had completed Six years of service in the Jr. Scale on 01.01.1995. His service record is unblemished and no adverse entry has ever been made or communicated to him. But on the basis of false complaint, a departmental inquiry was initiated against him and the same was closed on 18.08.1998. But, the Departmental Promotion Committee has not considered his request. After the closure of the departmental inquiry, he again made representation and also sent a notice to the respondents and filed a petition before the erstwhile State Administrative Tribunal, later on abolition of Tribunal, case was transferred to the High Court and re-numbered as W.P.No.5523 of 2003. Thereafter, vide order dated 03.01.2008 passed by Hon'ble Single Bench the petitioner was found eligible for promotion in Sr. Pay Scale since 01.01.1995. Later on, the Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 21.09.2015 set aside the order of Single Bench and directed the respondents to hold a review DPC. The ACRs of the years 1993 and 1994 which were never communicated to the petitioner, cannot be taken into consideration against him. Therefore, the order passed by the respondent authorities is wholly illegal and contrary to facts and records. Hence, the respondents be directed to promote the petitioner in the Sr. pay scale w.e.f 01.01.1995 with all outstanding arrears Signature Not Verified Signed by: RAM KUMAR SHARMA Signing time: 30-08-2024 05:39:52 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-GWL:14598 3 WP-2686-2019 and interest thereon at the rate of 12% per annum.
Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents opposes the prayer by submitting that as per the order passed by the Divisional Bench a review DPC has been conducted, and due to the adverse ACRS and entire service record, the petitioner was not found eligible for promotion in the Senior Pay Scale.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents appended along with this petition.
It is an admitted fact that the petitioner was appointed to the post of Dy. Collector on 13.06.1988 and he was deprived of appointment in Sr.Pay Scale of State Services in the year 1995. Although the petitioner claimed that his service record was excellent and unblemished but the description of his ACRS which has been mentioned in the order dated 03.12.2018 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in contempt Case No.204 of 2016 (Ashok Kumar Vajpayee Vs. M.K.Varshney and others), it appears that DPC in its meeting in 1995 for grant of Sr.Pay Scale considered the incumbent possessing four `(ख)' and one'(ग)' out of five ACRS. In the present case, the petitioner obtained two `(ग)' in 1993 and 1994 respectively.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondents have not communicated to him about the ACRS therefore, in view of the law laid down by Apex Court in the case of Rukhsana Shaheen Khan Vs. Union of India and Others vide order dated 28.08.2018 passed in Civil Appeal No.32 of 2013 and in R.K.Jibanlata Devi Vs. High Court of Manipur vide order dated 24.02.2024 in Writ Petition (Civil) No.1209 of 2021, uncommunicated Signature Not Verified Signed by: RAM KUMAR SHARMA Signing time: 30-08-2024 05:39:52 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-GWL:14598 4 WP-2686-2019 adverse ACRS cannot be relied upon in the process, but in the instant case, there might have been no enable provision for communication of adverse ACRs in the year 1995. Therefore, the cases relied upon by the petitioner are not applicable in the present case. Therefore, on the basis of Adverse ACRS of the respective period and the entire service record, the petitioner was not found eligible for promotion in Sr.Pay Scale.
Even otherwise, while taking into consideration the aforesaid legal position as discussed above, this Court is of the considered view that the entire service record of the petitioner clearly suggests that there was repeated adverse entries found against the petitioner in ACR's, and his overall performance wasn't found to be satisfactory, therefore, the impugned order was rightly passed taking into consideration the entire service record of the petitioner. It is also apparent from the record that during service tenure of the petitioner, a departmental inquiry was also initiated against the petitioner. In the case of R.K.Parashar Vs. M.P. Power Management Company and Others , 2013(3) MPLJ 405, co-ordinate Bench of this Court held that the scope of interference by the High Court in the case of adverse ACRs is very limited.
Considering the above, this Court does not find any merit in the petition. This petition sans merits and is hereby dismissed.
(ANIL VERMA) JUDGE Rks Signature Not Verified Signed by: RAM KUMAR SHARMA Signing time: 30-08-2024 05:39:52 PM