IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE WRIT PETITION No. 5895 of 2016 UMASHANKAR SHARMA Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THR AND OTHERS ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Appearance:

Shri Shashank Indapurkar - Advocate for the petitioner.

Shri Sohit Mishra – Govt. Advocate for the respondents/State.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Reserved on : 17/06/2025 Delivered on : 02/ 07/2025 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This petition having been heard and reserved for orders, comiing on for pronouncement this day, the Hon'ble Shri Justice Milind Ramesh Phadke pronounced/passed the following:

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ORDER

The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed seeking following reliefs:-

"(i) That the impugned order dt.27.8.2013 (Annexure P/1) passed by the respondents whereby the principle of no work no pay was applied may kindly be quashed.

(ii) That a direction may kindly be issued to the respondents to open the sealed cover proceeding regarding the petitioner and he may be granted the actual benefit of promotion from the date when his juniors were promoted i.e. 1988.

(iii) That since the termination order dt.13.3.1991 (Annexure P/2) is quashed, therefore a direction may kindly be issued to the respondents to grant the actual benefit from the date of termination till the date of retirement after due fixation of salary after granting the promotion and accordingly the arrears of salary and other benefits be also paid to the petitioner.

(iv) That a direction may also be issued to the respondents to pay the interest at the rate of 12% on the amount of pension and pensionary benefits, which have been unnecessarily retrained by the respondents, right from 2005 when the order of termination was quashed up to the date when the actual payment has been made with further directions to the respondents to refund the amount which has been deducted alongwith the interest from the PPO.

(v) That the costs of this petition be also awarded to the petitioner."

2. Short facts of the case are that the petitioner was initially appointed as Agricultural Assistant and in the year 1971 was promoted on the post of Senior Agriculture Development Officer (SADO). Thereafter, his services were transferred to Panchayat Department in the year of 1981 and in the year 1988, his services were repatriated to his parent department and he was again posted as Senior Agriculture Development Officer (SADO). In the meantime, the process of promotion on the post of Assistant Director Agriculture was initiated but on account of departmental inquiry initiated in the year 1983 against the petitioner, the petitioner's case was kept in a sealed cover. Thereafter, on 13.03.1991 the departmental inquiry against the petitioner culminated in his dismissal from service. Against the aforesaid order of dismissal dated 13.3.1991, the petitioner preferred an original application before the earstwhile SAT, which was registered as O.A.No.3131/1991, which ultimately after demolition of SAT was transferred to this Court and was registered as W.P.No.2639/2003 and was allowed by vide order dated 22.11.2005, whereby his order of termination was quashed and the matter was remanded back to the District Inquiry Officer to hold an inquiry against the petitioner in accordance with law after following the procedure laid down under Rule 14 of the M.P. Civil Services (Classification Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 and providing opportunity of hearing. It was further directed that the enquiry shall be completed within a period of six weeks from the date of communication of the order, but the said enquiry never commenced after remand, therefore, on 23.04.2010, the District Inquiry Officer gave the o