Madhya Pradesh High Court
Jai Krishan Gaur vs Municipal Corporation,Gwalior on 24 September, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:23717
1 WP. No. 1488 of 2010
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND SINGH BAHRAWAT
ON THE 24th OF SEPTEMBER, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 1488 of 2010
JAI KRISHAN GAUR
Versus
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION,GWALIOR AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri M.P.S. Raghuvanshi - Senior Advocate with Shri Manish Gurjar- Advocate
for petitioner.
Shri Nakul Khedkar- Advocate for respondent No.1.
ORDER
This petition, under Article 226 of Constitution of India, has been filed seeking the following relief (s):
"(i) That, the order Annexure P/1, be directed to be set aside and the petitioner' promotion to the post of Assistant Property Tax Officer/Assistant Revenue Officer, w.e.f. 31-12-1984 be held to be valid in law. He be directed to be promoted to the post of Assistant Commissioner, w.e.f. the day, his case for promotion was recommended by the DPC along with respondent No.2.
(ii) That, in alternative, the promotion of respondent no.2 to the post of Assistant Property Tax Officer/Assistant Revenue Officer and consequential promotion order to the post of Assistant Commissioner be directed to be set aside and he be directed to be reverted back.Signature Not Verified Signed by: PAWAN DHARKAR Signing time: 9/26/2025 6:17:18 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:23717 2 WP. No. 1488 of 2010
(iii) That, the other relief doing justice including cost be awarded."
2. It is submitted by Shri Raghuvanshi, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner that petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Lower Division Clerk w.e.f. 14.05.1969 and thereafter w.e.f. 03.08.1983, petitioner was promoted as UDC. Later on, he was promoted on the post of Assistant Sanitary Inspector w.e.f. 25-11-1983. Petitioner was thereafter promoted as Zonal Officer by order dated 06.08.1996 along with one junior namely Gyan Singh and respondent no. 2 who was placed just above the petitioner in the gradation list. The junior of petitioner namely Gyan Singh was granted promotion to the post of Assistant Property Tax Officer / Assistant Revenue Officer w.e.f. 31-12-1984 and respondent no. 2, being senior to that of Gyan Singh, he filed one writ petition bearing no.WP. No.1244/1998 before this Court which was allowed by order dated 10.05.2001. Thereafter, the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Gwalior, forwarded one proposal dated 10.12.2001 towards Mayor-in-Council. On 08-03-2002, the MIC called for the seniority list and on that basis the resolution dt. 08-03-2002 was passed. Then Resolution No.1280 was passed by Mayor-in-Council on 27-03-2002 (Annexure P-9) and the case of petitioner for grant of seniority and promotion on the post of Assistant Property Tax Officer w.e.f. the date said Gyan Singh was promoted i.e. 31-12-1984 was accepted.
3. It is submitted that thereafter, the Commissioner Municipal Corporation, Gwalior, issued promotion order dated 06-07-2002 by which respondent no.2 who was working as Zonal Officer was promoted to the post of Assistant Property Tax Officer w.e.f. 31-12-1984. Later on, vide order dt. 07/09-06-2003 (Annexure P-11), the Commissioner Municipal Corporation Gwalior stayed all Signature Not Verified Signed by: PAWAN DHARKAR Signing time: 9/26/2025 6:17:18 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:23717 3 WP. No. 1488 of 2010 orders which were passed between 07-02-2002 to 7/9-06-2002. The enquiry committee submitted its report dated 28.01.2004 by which the promotion granted to the petitioner was justified. On the basis of above enquiry report another order dt. 20-02-2004 (Annexure P-13) was passed whereby the order of promotion of the petitioner was given effect to (upheld) and order dated 12.09.2003 was cancelled. Thereafter, the said order dt. 20-02-2004 was subsequently cancelled vide order dt. 25-02-2004 (Annexure P-14). Against the above order dated 25.02.2004, one writ petition bearing WP. No.805/2004 was filed by 16 writ petitioners and initially stay was granted and thereafter petition was allowed by order dated 24.01.2008 and order dt. 25-02-2004 was quashed. Thereafter, petitioner along with two other persons filed a Writ Petition bearing WP.No.2204/2004. In their petition though initially stay was granted but later on by order dated 08.02.2008 the said writ petition was dismissed. Being aggrieved by the said dismissal, petitioner preferred Writ Appeal No.107/2008 and by order dated 23.10.2009 the Writ Appeal was allowed and order dated 08.02.2008 was set aside as well as reversion order was also set aside, however, liberty was extended to the respondent Corporation to pass fresh order after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Thereafter, Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Gwalior issued a show-cause notice to petitioner, which for ready reference and convenience is quoted below:
**vkidh vksj ls çLrqr ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; esa voekuuk ;kfpdk Øekad 107@2008 esa ikfjr vkns'k fnukad 23-10-09 }kjk vknsf'kr fd;k x;k gS fd "Considering this, we allow this appeal set aside the order impugned as well as order of reversion with a liberty to the Municipal Corporation to pass order afresh after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. This exercise shall be completed within a period of two months from today, till then the petitioners Signature Not Verified Signed by: PAWAN DHARKAR Signing time: 9/26/2025 6:17:18 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:23717 4 WP. No. 1488 of 2010 shall get existing salary to which they are getting." ds ikyu esa v/kkSgLrk{kjdrkZ ds le{k esa lquokbZ gsrq fnukad 11 uoEcj 2009 dks nksigj 12 cts lkekU; ç'kklu foHkkx esa vius çdj.k ls lacaf/kr leLr vfHkys[k fyf[kr@ekSf[kd lfgr dFku gsrq viuh mifLFkfr lqfuf'pr djsaA fu;r frFkh] le; ,oa LFkku ij mifLFkr ugha gksus dh n'kk esa ;g ekuk tk,xk fd vkidks vius çdj.k ds laca/k esa dqN Hkh ugha dguk gS] rnqijkar ,d i{kh; fu.kZ;
fy;k tk,xk ,oa vkidk dksbZ rdZ Jo.k ,oa ekU; ;ksX; ugha gksxkA lwfpr gksA**
4. It is submitted that petitioner filed a detailed reply dated 25.11.2009 to the above show-cause notice and justified his promotion to the post of Assistant Property Tax Officer/Assistant Revenue Officer. Thereafter, impugned order dated 18.03.2010 was passed by Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Gwalior and order dated 06.07.2002 was cancelled and petitioner was directed to be treated as Sanitary Inspector without considering that petitioner was promoted from the post of Zonal Officer to the post of Assistant Property Tax Officer/Assistant Revenue Officer. Another order has been issued on 18.03.2010 whereby the petitioner has been directed to be promoted a Chief Sanitary Inspector.
5. Learned Senior Counsel submits that respondent No.2 was also promoted by the same order but he has not been demoted and in his case the channel of promotion has been accepted whereas in case of petitioner respondent No.1 while taking reference of Madhya Pradesh Municipal Corporation (Appointment and Conditions of Service of Officers and Servants) Rules, 2000 (for brevity "Rules of 2000") stated that there is no channel of promotion from the post of Zonal Officer to the post of Assistant Property Tax Officer/Assistant Revenue Officer. It further submitted that at the time when petitioner was promoted to the post of Assistant Property Tax Officer/ Assistant Revenue Officer, 5 posts were vacant. It is further submitted that prior to 2000, in the year 1996, the petitioner was Signature Not Verified Signed by: PAWAN DHARKAR Signing time: 9/26/2025 6:17:18 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:23717 5 WP. No. 1488 of 2010 considered by the DPC and was recommended to be given benefit of promotion with effect from 11.02.1997 on the post of Assistant Property Tax Officer in the year 1998.
6. It is submitted by learned Senior Counsel that before coming into the force the Rules of 2000 petitioner was recommended for promotion as the Rules were published in the Gazette on 09.02.2001. It is submitted that since the petitioner was promoted w.e.f. 31-12-1984 on the post of Assistant Property Tax Officer/ Assistant Revenue Officer his case will not be governed by the Rules of 2000 and accordingly he was rightly promoted to the post of Assistant Property Tax Officer/Assistant Revenue Officer. It is submitted that the impugned order is contrary to law and deserves to be set aside for the reason that case of petitioner has been considered by impugned order in the light of the Rules of 2000 and petitioner has been promoted with retrospective effect i.e. 31.12.1984. Therefore, at the time of consideration for promotion with effect from 31.12.1984 Rules of 2000 were not applicable and therefore, the channel of promotion prescribed in Rules of 2000 is not applicable in the case of petitioner. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that in respect of respondent No.2 same channel has been accepted and he has further been promoted while in the case of petitioner different criteria has been adopted which is contrary to Article 14 of Constitution of India. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that before issuing impugned order, the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Gwalior did not consider that promotion was granted with effect from 31.12.1984 i.e. before Rules of 2000 could come into picture and before Rules of 2000 the Zonal Officers were promoted to the post of Assistant Property Tax Officer/ Assistant Revenue Officer and junior to petitioner i.e. Gyan Singh and respondent No.2 were Signature Not Verified Signed by: PAWAN DHARKAR Signing time: 9/26/2025 6:17:18 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:23717 6 WP. No. 1488 of 2010 promoted to the post of Assistant Property Tax Officer/ Assistant Revenue Officer and Gyan Singh stood superannuated after enjoying the promotion and respondent No.2 was also benefited by the same procedure and therefore, respondent No.1 cannot apply the Rules of 2000 in case of petitioner. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that in the show-cause notice Annexure P-19 there are no details mentioning the facts and grounds as to why show cause notice has been issued and there are no details of facts & grounds on the basis of which reply was called from the petitioner. However, despite that petitioner submitted his detailed and reasoned reply but that has not been considered while issuing the impugned order dated 18.03.2010. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that along with petitioner one Gyan Singh, Abid Hussain Quereshi, Badri Narain Shukla, Jagdish Kumar Sharma and Ashok Kumar Pandey were working as Zonal Officers in Municipal Corporation, Gwalior and they were promoted to the post of Assistant Property Tax Officer / Assistant Revenue Officer vide order dt. 6.7.2002. However, Mr. Gyan Singh, Abid Hussain Quereshi were retired from the post of Assistant Property Tax Officer/Assistant Revenue Officer and Jagdish Kumar Sharma was further promoted to the post of Assistant Commissioner but in case of petitioner different criteria was adopted. It is further submitted that post of Assistant Property Tax Officer /Assistant Revenue Officer was not falling vacant in the year 2002, however, this fact is incorrect because in the year 2002, out of total 13 posts, 5 posts of Assistant Property Tax Officer/ Assistant Revenue Officer were vacant (Annexure P-29). Learned Senior Counsel submits that before 2001, there was no rule governing services of the employees of the Municipal Corporation and accordingly Zonal Officers were promoted to the post of Assistant Property Tax Officer/Asst. Revenue Officer.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: PAWAN DHARKAR Signing time: 9/26/2025 6:17:18 PMNEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:23717 7 WP. No. 1488 of 2010 Learned Senior Counsel submits that by the impugned order dt. 18-3-2010, petitioner's promotion order dt. 6-7-2002 has been cancelled, however, considering the promotion order dated 6-7-2002 respondent/Corporation has granted promotion to other persons, namely, Subhash Gupta and Kanhaiya Neekhra as they had approached this Court by filing WP. No.2213/2002 and 2306/2002 and respondent/Corporation has granted promotion and seniority to them w.e.f. 31-12-1984 vide order dated 8-5-2007 (Annexure P-31). Similar order was passed in respect of Balkrishna Bansal in WP.No. 2110/2002 on 22.07.2008 and seniority has been assigned with effect from 31.12.1984 vide Annexure P-32 dated 20.02.2009 and respondent/Corporation has also granted benefit of seniority to one Shyam Kumar Khare w.e.f. 31-12-1984 vide order dt. 5.5.2007 (Annexure P-33). Learned Senior Counsel further submits that respondent/Corporation has granted benefit to other persons on the basis of promotion of petitioner but the benefit of promotion order dated 06.07.2002 has been withdrawn. It is further submitted that on the basis of DPC recommendation three persons namely, Jagdish Kumar Sharma, Shyam Kumar Khare and Gulab Rao Kale have also been promoted to the post of Assistant Commissioner but the case of petitioner has been kept in sealed cover envelope and one Badri Narain Shukla has also been promoted on the basis of DPC recommendation on the post of Assistant Commissioner. It is submitted by learned Senior Counsel that Shyam Kumar Khare is also similarly situated to petitioner and he has also been promoted along with petitioner by order dated 06.08.1996 and therefore once respondent/Corporation has given benefit to similarly situated persons, withdrawing the same benefit in respect of petitioner is illegal and without jurisdiction.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: PAWAN DHARKAR Signing time: 9/26/2025 6:17:18 PMNEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:23717 8 WP. No. 1488 of 2010
7. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.1 submitted that petitioner is not entitled to get any relief in view of the channel of promotion according to rules framed by the State Government of Madhya Pradesh i.e. Rules of 2000. Promotion as well as appointment are to be governed by said Rules of 2000 which prescribe the channel for promoting the persons. It has been prescribed that for the purpose of promotion on the post of Assistant Commissioner, qualification is 8 years working as office superintendent and Assistant Revenue/property Tax Officer and for the purpose of promotion on the post of Deputy Commissioner prescribed qualification is 5 years service as Assistant Commissioner. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 further submits that as petitioner does not come in the channel of promotion in accordance with Rules of 2000, he is not entitled to get any relief. It is further submitted by him that by order dated 23.10.2009 passed in WA No.107/2008 the Division Bench of this Court has granted liberty to respondent/Corporation to pass the order afresh after giving opportunity of hearing to petitioner and on the basis of that liberty, the impugned order has been passed.
8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
9. Admittedly, respondent No.1 has relied upon the judgment dated 08.02.2008 passed in WP.No.2204/2004 and relying upon the facts and grounds mentioned in the judgment dated 08.02.2008, the impugned order has been passed. The impugned order has been passed without considering the fact that order dated 08.02.2008 passed in WP.No.2204/2004 has already been set aside by the Division Bench by order dated 23.10.2009 passed in WA. No.107/2008. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 is not able to give any reason as to why benefit of promotion has been extended to respondent No.2 and respondent No.2 Signature Not Verified Signed by: PAWAN DHARKAR Signing time: 9/26/2025 6:17:18 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:23717 9 WP. No. 1488 of 2010 is further promoted on the post of Assistant Commissioner. When specific query was made to learned counsel for respondent No.1 then it is submitted that there was an order passed in favour of respondent No.2 by this Court and therefore, respondent no.2 was promoted on the post of Assistant Commissioner. In rejoinder, it is mentioned that similar benefit has been extended to Gyan Singh, Abid Hussain Qureshi, Jagdish Kumar Sharma, Ashok Kumar Pandey, Subhash Gupta and Kanhaiya Neekhra but the same has been denied in respect of petitioner and the benefit to above persons i.e. Gyan Singh, Abid Hussain Qureshi, Jagdish Kumar Sharma, Ashok Kumar Pandey, Subhash Gupta and Kanhaiya Neekhra has been given on the basis of promotion order of petitioner but the promotion order of petitioner has been cancelled by order dated 18.03.2010. Petitioner was promoted with retrospective effect i.e. 31.12.1984 on the post of Assistant Property Tax Officer and admittedly at that time Rules of 2000 had not come into force and once benefit of promotion of Assistant Property Tax Officer had been granted w.e.f. 31.12.1984 as the case of petitioner had been considered on the date i.e. 31.12.1984 then on the basis of subsequent Rules promotion of the petitioner cannot be cancelled.
10. Subhash Gupta and Kanhaiya Neekhra have been promoted with retrospective effect i.e. from 31.12.1984 on the post of Assistant Property Tax Officer by order dated 20.02.2009 and Subhash Gupta and Kanhaiya Neekhra have been promoted due to order passed in WP. No.2110/2002 vide order dated 22.07.2008. Admittedly, Subhash Gupta and Kanhaiya Neekhra are juniors to petitioner and once the benefit of promotion on the post of Assistant Property Tax Officer has been granted to juniors i.e. Subhash Gupta and Kanhaiya Neekhra with effect from 31.12.1984 petitioner is also entitled to be given Signature Not Verified Signed by: PAWAN DHARKAR Signing time: 9/26/2025 6:17:18 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:23717 10 WP. No. 1488 of 2010 promotion on the post of Assistant Property Tax Officer with effect from 31.12.1984. Even respondent No.1 has not filed additional reply to deny the promotion of Subhash Gupta and Kanhaiya Neekhra.
11. From perusal of documents available on record, it is gathered that respondent No.2 was also promoted by the same order but he has not been demoted and in his case the channel of promotion has been accepted whereas in case of petitioner respondent No.1 while taking reference of Rules of 2000 stated that there is no channel of promotion from the post of Zonal Officer to the post of Assistant Property Tax Officer/Assistant Revenue Officer. Before coming into the force the Rules of 2000 petitioner was recommended for promotion as the Rules were published in the Gazette on 09.02.2001. Petitioner was promoted w.e.f. 31-12-1984 on the post of Assistant Property Tax Officer/ Assistant Revenue Officer, his case will not be governed by the Rules of 2000 and accordingly he was rightly promoted to the post of Assistant Property Tax Officer/Assistant Revenue Officer. In respect of respondent No.2 same channel has been accepted and he has further been promoted while in the case of petitioner different criteria has been adopted which is contrary to Article 14 of Constitution of India. Along with petitioner one Gyan Singh, Abid Hussain Quereshi, Badri Narain Shukla, Jagdish Kumar Sharma and Ashok Kumar Pandey were working as Zonal Officers in Municipal Corporation, Gwalior and they were promoted to the post of Assistant Property Tax Officer / Assistant Revenue Officer vide order dt. 6.7.2002. Jagdish Kumar Sharma was further promoted to the post of Assistant Commissioner but in case of petitioner different criteria was adopted. In the year 2002, out of total 13 posts, 5 posts of Assistant Property Tax Officer/ Assistant Revenue Officer were vacant. Before Signature Not Verified Signed by: PAWAN DHARKAR Signing time: 9/26/2025 6:17:18 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:23717 11 WP. No. 1488 of 2010 2001, there was no rule governing services of the employees of the Municipal Corporation and accordingly Zonal Officers were promoted to the post of Assistant Property Tax Officer/Asst. Revenue Officer. Considering the promotion order dated 6-7-2002 respondent/Corporation granted promotion to other persons, namely, Subhash Gupta and Kanhaiya Neekhra as they had approached this Court by filing WP. No.2213/2002 and 2306/2002 and respondent/Corporation granted promotion and seniority to them w.e.f. 31-12- 1984 vide order dated 8-5-2007. Similar order was passed in respect of Balkrishna Bansal in WP.No. 2110/2002 on 22.07.2008 and seniority has been assigned with effect from 31.12.1984 vide Annexure P-32 dated 20.02.2009 and respondent/Corporation also granted benefit of seniority to one Shyam Kumar Khare w.e.f. 31-12-1984 vide order dt. 5.5.2007. Respondent/Corporation has granted benefit to other persons on the basis of promotion of petitioner but the benefit of promotion order dated 06.07.2002 has been withdrawn. On the basis of DPC recommendation three persons namely, Jagdish Kumar Sharma, Shyam Kumar Khare and Gulab Rao Kale have also been promoted to the post of Assistant Commissioner but the case of petitioner has been kept in sealed cover envelope and one Badri Narain Shukla has also been promoted on the basis of DPC recommendation on the post of Assistant Commissioner. Shyam Kumar Khare is also similarly situated to petitioner and he has also been promoted along with petitioner by order dated 06.08.1996 and therefore once respondent/Corporation has given benefit to similarly situated persons, withdrawing the same benefit in respect of petitioner is illegal and without jurisdiction.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: PAWAN DHARKAR Signing time: 9/26/2025 6:17:18 PMNEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:23717 12 WP. No. 1488 of 2010
12. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh And Others Vs. Mahesh Narain And Others reported in (2013) 4 SCC 169, in para 5, 15, 16 and 17, has held as under:-
"5. There were 15 posts of Assistant Directors in the Department which were sanctioned by the State when the Rules of 1987 came into force. The Rules of 1987 were subsequently amended by the U.P. Forensic Science Laboratories Technical Officers Service (First Amendment) Rules, 1990 which were published in the U.P. Government Gazette dated 20-10-1990. In the meantime, the respondents had already acquired 5 years of experience on the next lower post due to which they had become eligible for promotion to the post of Assistant Director, Forensic Science.
15. The principle laid down in Nirmal Chandra case [1991 Supp (2) SCC 363 : 1992 SCC (L&S) 236 : (1992) 19 ATC 302] aptly fits into the facts and circumstances of this case as the subsequent amendment of 1990 laying down to fill in all the posts of Assistant Director, Forensic Science by direct recruitment could not have been applied in case of the respondents who were already holding the post of Scientific Officer and hence were eligible to the promoted quota of 25% posts of Assistant Director after completion of five years of service as Scientific Officers in terms of the Rules of 1987 and, therefore, their experience of five years on this post could not have been made to go waste on the ground that the amendment came into effect in 1990 making all the posts of Assistant Director to be filled in by direct recruitment. In support of this view, the counsel for the respondents also relied on the decision of this Court in B.L. Gupta v. MCD [(1998) 9 SCC 223 : 1998 SCC (L&S) 532] wherein this Court had held that any vacancy which arose after 1995 was to be filled up according to the rules but the vacancies which arose prior to 1995 should have been filled up according to the 1978 Rules only.
16. As a consequence of the aforesaid analysis, we have no hesitation in holding that the High Court was right in taking the view that the respondents were eligible for promotion to the post of Assistant Director under the Rules of 1987 against 25% quota to be Signature Not Verified Signed by: PAWAN DHARKAR Signing time: 9/26/2025 6:17:18 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:23717 13 WP. No. 1488 of 2010 filled in by promotion as they satisfied the conditions of five years of requisite experience on the post of Scientific Officer if the experience were to be counted from the date of publication of the Rules in the U.P. Government Gazette.
17. But besides the above, it cannot be overlooked that even if it were to be assumed that the respondents had not completed five years of experience on the post of Scientific Officer for any reason whatsoever making them ineligible for consideration of further promotion, they also had the statutory protection and benefit of the proviso to the said Rule 5 which laid down that where permanent Scientific Officers were not available for absorption under the 25% quota, such temporary and officiating personnel were also to be considered for promotion to the said posts who were functioning on permanent basis on the next lower post. It is an admitted position that the respondents had already been confirmed on the next lower post when they were promoted to the post of Scientific Officers and as they were entitled to the benefit of the proviso which laid down that even the temporary Scientific Officers who are permanent on next below post may also be considered for the purpose of promotion, the respondents had a right to be considered for promotion since they were continuing on the post of Scientific Officer and had completed five years even before the amended Rules came into effect on 20-10-
1990 which laid down that all posts of Assistant Directors would be filled by direct recruitment. Thus, for this additional and sure shot reason as also for the reasons which have been assigned by the High Court, we find no infirmity in the orders of the High Court as also the Tribunal which had held in favour of the respondents directing the appellant State of U.P. to consider their eligibility for promotion to the post of Assistant Director, Forensic Science and grant them the consequential benefit if found eligible."
13. In view of the aforesaid judgment, it is well settled that the Rules came into force at later stage cannot be considered with retrospective effect. Therefore, petitioner is entitled to promotion on the post of Assistant Property Tax Officer Signature Not Verified Signed by: PAWAN DHARKAR Signing time: 9/26/2025 6:17:18 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:23717 14 WP. No. 1488 of 2010 with effect from 31.12.1984 and is also entitled to further promotions as have been granted to respondent No.2.
14. Consequently, present petition is allowed in the following manner:
(i) Impugned order dated 18.03.2010 (Annexure P-1) is hereby quashed;
(ii) Respondent No.1 is directed to extend promotion, holding it to be valid, to petitioner on the post of Assistant Property Tax Officer/Assistant Revenue Officer with effect from 31.12.1984; and
(iii) Respondent No.1 is further directed to promote the petitioner on the post of Assistant Commissioner with effect from the date on which respondent No.2 had been promoted as Assistant Commissioner with all consequential benefits including monetary benefits, issue revised PPO & GPO and pay arrears accordingly.
(iv) Respondent No.1 is directed to comply the aforesaid direction within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, failing which petitioner would be entitled to interest @ 6% per annum from the date of realization till actual payment.
15. Before parting with the case, this Court considers it apposite and does so by imposing a cost of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) on respondent No.1 which is directed to be paid to petitioner, as similar benefit was extended to other persons denying the same to petitioner as discussed above.
(Anand Singh Bahrawat) Judge pd Signature Not Verified Signed by: PAWAN DHARKAR Signing time: 9/26/2025 6:17:18 PM