SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2021 Supreme(MP) 360

SUJOY PAUL, SHAILENDRA SHUKLA
State of M. P. – Appellant
Versus
Vishnu Prashad Maran – Respondent


Advocates:
Shrey Raj Saxena, Panel Lawyer for appellants; A.K. Sethi with Rahul Sethi for respondent No.1.

ORDER

Paul,J. --1. This intra-Court appeal takes exception to the order dated 17.9.2019 passed in W.P. No.9838/2018, whereby learned Writ Court directed the department to open the sealed cover and give effect to the recommendations for promotion. In addition, learned Writ Court directed to grant interest on delayed payment of retiral dues with further direction to pay arrears of 7th Pay Commission.

2. Shri Shrey Raj Saxena, learned Panel Lawyer assailed the order of learned Writ Court on twin grounds. Firstly, it is argued that the main reason for interference with the punishment of censure dated 13.3.2018 was that against the Enquiry Officer's report, the petitioner was not given any opportunity by issuance of notice by the disciplinary authority. He submits that the disciplinary authority issued a notice along with the Enquiry Officer's report and therefore, this reason for interference on the punishment cannot sustain judicial scrutiny. Secondly, learned Writ Court has committed an error in granting interest on delayed payment of retiral dues.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant urged that the delay in releasing the retiral dues was because of pendency of disciplinary proceeding

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top