Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 48 (MP)

Rama Devi Dixit v. State of M. P.

2001-01-11

S.S.JHA

body2001
Short Note Petitioner was appointed in respondent No. 2 College vide order dated 25.2.1991. Petitioner was appointed as Lecturer in the Department of Hindi on probation for a period of one year. The payment of salary was subject to approval by Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Shiksha Anudan Ayog. Petitioner joined the services but was not paid the salary, and lateron was discontinued from service. Petitioner preferred a writ petition before this Court which was registered as Misc. Petition No. 738/92. The Court held that the petitioner has rendered service for a period of one year in the College after her selection, but she has not been paid salary for that period and she was discontinued for want of approval of the Ayog. The post is lying vacant and is not filled. The appointment of the petitioner has not been continued after her section as a result of silent inaction or negative approach of the Ayog, which sat over the proposal for nearly two years. Therefore. the Ayog was directed to take a decision in regard to the proposal of the approval of the petitioner and if no decision is taken before 15.2.1993, the proposal shall be deemed to be approved. It was further directed that the Ayog shall issue pay-slip to the petitioner for the period she had rendered service. Pursuant to the order of this Court dated 9.12.1992 passed in M.P. No.738/1992, petitioner's appointment was approved and it was directed that the petitioner should be paid salary from the date of order or from the date of her joining service whichever is later. The order was passed on 25.1.1993. Petitioner joined service on 27.1.1993. The grievance of the petitioner is that she has not been paid salary and given seniority with effect from 25.2.1991. It is also prayed that all the benefits and arrears of salary and allowances be released to the petitioner with effect from 25.2.1991. Admittedly, petitioner had rendered service for a period of one year from the date of her appointment i.e. 25.2.1991. It had also been directed by this Court that the petitioner shall be issued pay slip for the period she had rendered service in the respondent-College vide order dated 9.12.1992 passed in M.P. No. 738/1992. Admittedly, petitioner had rendered service for a period of one year from the date of her appointment i.e. 25.2.1991. It had also been directed by this Court that the petitioner shall be issued pay slip for the period she had rendered service in the respondent-College vide order dated 9.12.1992 passed in M.P. No. 738/1992. In the return, respondent No. 1 has submitted that as per Annexure P-4 no pay-slip can be issued to the petitioner for the earlier period which shall be deemed to be refused. It appears that the order was not read properly by the respondents. The contention of the respondents that the question of issuance of pay slip for the earlier period has been refused is not only incorrect but is contrary to the order passed by this Court in M.P. No. 738/1992. Respondent No.1 was bound to issue pay slip for the period of service rendered by the petitioner from 25.2.1991 till she was discontinued. Petitioner was selected by duly constituted body and specific directions were issued by this Court for issuance of pay slip to the petitioner for the period she had rendered service and also in regard to her entitlement to continue further in service. Respondent No.1 has taken a decision to continue the petitioner further in service. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to arrears of salary with interest for the period she had served. It is, therefore, directed that arrears of salary be paid to the petitioner within a period of three months from today with interest at the rate of 12 percent per annum from 9th December, 1992 i.e. the date of order passed by this Court in M.P. No. 738/1992. Petitioner is further entitled to salary from 27.1.1993 when she joined after the order Annexure P-4 was passed. The salary, after 27.1.1993, if not paid, be also paid to the petitioner forth with. However, in the facts of the case, petitioner shall not be entitled to any salary for the period she has not rendered service. Petitioner shall be entitled for the seniority with effect from 25.2.1991 on the post of Lecturer. With the aforesaid directions, the petition succeeds and is allowed with costs quantified at Rs. 2,000/- payable by respondent No.1. However, in the facts of the case, petitioner shall not be entitled to any salary for the period she has not rendered service. Petitioner shall be entitled for the seniority with effect from 25.2.1991 on the post of Lecturer. With the aforesaid directions, the petition succeeds and is allowed with costs quantified at Rs. 2,000/- payable by respondent No.1. The amount of costs and interest shall be recovered from the erring officer and the officer-in-charge of the case, who has filed incorrect affidavit, which is nothing but indirectly disobeying the order passed by this Court in M.P. No. 738/1992.