Back
2001 (1) JLJ 411
Bhawani Singh, C.J. and A.K. Mishra, J.
State of M.P. and another v. Shankarlal Sahu and another
Writ Petition No. 3988 of 2000 (J); against the decision of State Administrative
Tribunal, passed in O.A. No. 022 of 1998;
Decided on 24.11.2000.
It may he seen that it was incumbent upon the petitioner to have opened the sealed cover immediately after this Court had quashed the proceedings and exonerated the respondent No. 1. In spite of the fact that he was reinstated on 26.6.89, matter was kept pending for 3 years and 8 months for opening the sealed cover and giving it the erred. The action of State of M.P. was clearly unjust in delaying the mailer. It appears that the respondent No. 1 was found fit by the DPC, but, the sealed cover proceedings were resorted to. [Para 5
Held: The Apex Court has laid down that "No work no pay" is not applicable in the case when an employee could not be promoted because of pending disciplinary action against him in which he is exonerated later on and promoted retrospectively from the date on which he was entitled. Same is the situation obtainable in the present case. AIR 1991 SC 2010 followed. [Para 5
(2) Civil Service -- retrospective promotion granted -- it was incumbent upon State to consider promotion to next higher post -- no infirmity found in direction to convene review by Departmental Promotion Committee.
We also find no infirmity in the direction to convene the review DPC so as to consider the case of the respondent No. 1 for promotion to the post of Food Officer as his junior was promoted on 29.10.92 and the case of the respondent No. 1 was not considered. As his claim of retrospective seniority was itself decided subsequently by the Government on 10.2.1993 when respondent No. 1 was granted retrospective promotion w.e.f. the date on which his junior Shri K.P. Dwivedi was promoted as Assistant Food Officer, it was incumbent upon the State of M.P. to have considered the case of the respondent No.1 to next higher post. [Para 6
¼1½ flfoy lsok && ^^dke ugha rks osru ugha** && yafcr vuq‘kklfud dkjZokbZ] ftlesa mls ckn esa foeqDr dj Hkwry{kh :i ls izksUur fd;k x;k] ds dkj.k deZpkjh izksUur ugha fd;k tk ldk && ykxw ugha gksrkA
ns[kk tk, fd bl U;k;ky; }kjk dk;Zokgh vfHk[kafMr dj izR;FkhZ Ø- 1 dks foeqDr fd, tk, ds rqjar i‘pkr~ ;kph ds fy, eqgjcan fyQkQk [kksyuk vko‘;d FkkA bl rF; ds ckotwn fd mls 26-6-1989 dks iqu% LFkkfir fd;k x;k] eqgjcan fyQkQk [kksy dj mls izHkkoh djus ds fo"k; dks 3 o"kZ 8 ekl rd yafcr j[kk x;kA e-iz- jkT; dh fo"k; esa foyac djus dh dkjZokbZ Li"Vr% vuqfpr FkhA izrhr gksrk gS fd foHkkxh; izksUufr lfefr }kjk izR;FkhZ Ø- 1 dks mi;qDr ik;k x;k Fkk] ijarq eqgjcan fyQkQs dh dk;Zokgh dk vkJ; fy;k x;kA ¿ iSjk 5
vfHkfu/kkZfjr % mPpre U;k;ky; }kjk vf/kfyf[kr fd;k x;k gS fd ^^dke ugha rks osru ugha** ml n‘kk esa ykxw ugha gksrk tc deZpkjh dks mlds fo:) yafcr ,slh vuq‘kklfud dkjZokbZ ds dkj.k izksUur fd;k tk,A , vkb vkj 1991 ,l lh 2010 vuqlfjrA ¿ iSjk 5
¼2½ flfoy lsok && Hkwry{kh izksUufr iznÙk && jkT; ds fy, vko‘;d Fkk fd vxys mPprj in ij izksUufr ij fopkj fd;k tkrk && foHkkxh; izksUufr lfefr }kjk iqufoZyksdu la;ksftr djus ds funs‘k esa dksbZ ‘kSfFkY; ugha ik;k x;kA
ge [kk| vf/kdkjh ds in ij izksUufr ds fy, izR;FkhZ Ø- 1 ds ekeys ij fopkj djus ds fy, iqufoZyksdu foHkkxh; izksUufr lfefr la;ksftr djus ds funs‘k esa Hkh dksbZ ‘kSfFkY; ugha ikrs D;ksafd mlds dfu"B dh izksUufr 29-10-1992 dks dh xbZ Fkh rFkk izR;FkhZ Ø- 1 ds ekeys ij fopkj ugha fd;k x;k FkkA D;ksafd Hkwry{kh T;s"Brk ds gh mlds nkos dk fofu‘p;u ljdkj }kjk ckn esa 10-2-1993 dks fd;k x;k Fkk tc izR;FkhZ Ø- 1 dks mlds dfu"B Jh ds-ih- f}osnh dks lgk;d [kk| vf/kdkjh ds :i esa izksUur djus ds fnukad ls izHkkoh Hkwry{kh izkUufr iznku dh xbZ Fkh] blfy,] e-iz- jkT; ds fy, vko‘;d Fkk fd vxys mPprj in ij izksUufr ds fy, izR;FkhZ Ø- 1 ds ekeys ij fopkj fd;k tkrkA ¿ iSjk 6
Mishra, J. -- 1. State is aggrieved by the decision of State Administrative Tribunal passed in O.A No. 622/98 on 13.1.2000, 2. The respondent No. 1 was involved in a criminal case u/s 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC r/w section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act and section 5(1)(d) and 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The proceedings were quashed in Criminal Revision by this Court and the respondent No. 1 was exonerated. The respondent No. 1 was under the suspension. He was reinstated vide order dt. 26.6.89. In the meantime during the period of suspension and reinstatement DPC was convened. As the case was pending against the respondent No.1, the recommendations were kept in the sealed cover and his junior namely Shri K.P. Dwivedi came to be promoted from the post of Food Inspector to the post of Assistant Food Officer w.e.f. 5.4.84. State of M.P. did not open the sealed cover for about 4 years and after it was opened the respondent No. 1 was promoted as Assistant Food Officer as per the recommendations contained in sealed cover vide order dt. 10.2.93. It appears that the respondent No.1 made several representations to give him promotion retrospectively from the date on which his junior Shri KP. Dwivedi was promoted and also to decide about the period of suspension. The promotion of the respondent No. 1 was ordered retrospectively w.e.f. 5.4.84, but, State refused to pay the arrears on the basis of principle of 'No work no pay'.
3. It also transpires that the State of M.P. did not consider the case of respondent No. 1 for further promotion to the post of Food Officer whereas his junior Shri K.P. Dwivedi was promoted w.e.f. 29.10.92. Therefore, the respondent No. 1 filed application before the Tribunal for grant of relief of arrears of pay w.e.f. 5.4.84 the date of promotion of his junior Shri K.P. Dwivedi to 10.2.93 and also prayed for consideration for further promotion as Food Officer w.e.f. 29.10.92.
4. The State Administrative Tribunal allowed the application and directed the arrears of pay to be paid within a period of four months w.e.f. the date the respondent was found fit for promotion i.e. 5.4.84 and also directed to convene the review OPC so as to consider the case of the applicant as food Officer w.e.f. the date 29.10.92 Shri K.P. Dwivedi, junior to respondent No. 1 was promoted and in case he is found fit to grant all consequential benefits. This order has been assailed.
5. It may be seen that it was incumbent upon the petitioner to have opened the sealed cover immediately after this Court had quashed the proceedings and exonerated the respondent No.1. Inspite of the fact that he was reinstated on 26.6.89 matter was kept pending for 3 years and 8 months for opening the sealed cover and giving it the effect. The action of State of M.P. was clearly unjust in delaying the matter. It appears that the respondent No. 1 was found fit by the DPC, but, the sealed cover proceedings were resorted to. The respondent No.1 has been totally exonerated. Nothing has been found against him. Thus, it appears that the respondent No. 1 was illegally deprived of his promotion. Thus, we find no error in the directions issued by the Tribunal of giving arrears of pay w.e.f. 5.4.84, the date on which junior of respondent No. 1 namely, Shri K.P. Dwivedi was promoted and respondent was also found fit by DPC for promotion. The State of M.P. has dropped all the disciplinary action and no further action was taken. In case of Union of India v. K.V. Jankiraman, AIR 1991 SC 2010 the Apex Court has laid down that "No Work No Pay" is not applicable in the case when an employee could not be promoted because of pending disciplinary action against him in which he is exonerated later on and promoted retrospectively from the date on which he was entitled. Same is the situation obtainable in the present case. In view of the decision of the Apex Court in case of Union of India v. K.V. Jankiraman (supra) the respondent No.1 has been rightly awarde
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
