Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sadanand Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 22 June, 2017
WP-16490-2015
(SADANAND SINGH Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
22-06-2017
Dr. Anuvad Shrivastava, learned counsel for the
petitioner.
Shri Manoj Kushwaha, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondents/State.
With consent of the parties, matter is heard finally at motion stage.
The petitioner has filed the present writ petition challenging the order dated 10/01/2014 passed by respondent No.2.
Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is a retired Education Officer. The petitioner was promoted to the post of Block Education Officer vide order dated 10/01/2014 on notional basis w.e.f. 10/02/2005. In the said order it has been stated that the pay fixation to the promoted post is made from 10/02/2005. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Fundamental Rule 22(a)(II) gives statutory right to the civil servant to give their option for the date of pay fixation. Accordingly, the petitioner vide Annexure P/2 has submitted his option for pay fixation w.e.f. August 2005. In pursuant to the option given by the petitioner, respondents had passed the order dated 10/02/2014 whereby fixing the pay of the petitioner w.e.f. 19/08/2005, however, he submits that actual pay fixation of the pay has not been done by the respondents and he was not given the pension and other consequential benefits accordingly. He submits that for the said purpose petitioner has filed the representation but no action has been taken in the matter.
Respondents have filed their reply and in the reply he has stated that the pay fixation of the petitioner has been made w.e.f. 10/02/2005. It has further been stated that once the petitioner having been accepted the order of promotion, he could not take a contrary stand that his pay should be fixed according to the option application dated 28/01/2014.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
From perusal of the record it reveals that as per Fundamental Rule 22(a)(II), the employee have a statutory right to submit his option regarding pay fixation. Accordingly, petitioner has given option for pay fixation w.e.f. August 2005. According to the option given by the petitioner, respondents have passed the order dated 10/02/2014 whereby fixed the pay of the petitioner w.e.f. 19/08/2005 and the date of increment has been shown as 01/07/2006. Once the respondents accepted the option and passed the necessary order, it is incumbent upon them to fix the pay accordingly. Thus, the writ petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to fix the pay of the petitioner as per the order dated 10/02/2014 and pension and other consequential retiral dues be paid accordingly. Certified copy as per rules.
(MISS VANDANA KASREKAR) JUDGE manju