Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 1062 (MP)

Umashankar v. State of M. P.

2006-09-06

R.K.GUPTA

body2006
ORDER 1. The petitioner by way of filing this petition before the Tribunal, has challenged his super session. The petitioner was not found fit in the DPC which met on 20th December 1989 to consider the case of the petitioner for his promotion to the post of Co-operative Inspector, vide AnneiureA-14 dated 24.9.1991. It is stated that the petitioner's case was considered for his promotion on 20.12.1989 by the DPC. The CR for the year 1988 since was graded poor therefore, the petitioner was not fount fit for his promotion to the post of Co-operative Inspector. It may be seen that the petitioner was communicated adverse CR for year ending 31st March 1988. On 24.10.1991, the said communication has been placed on record as Annexure P-15 to the petition. 2. The return has been filed by the respondent and in paragraph 3 of the return it is stated that the CR for year ending 31st March 1988 was communicated to the petitioner by a letter dated 24.9.1991. Thus apparently the petitioner was only communicated the adverse CR for the year ending 31st March 1988 after the date of DPC i.e. 20.12.1989. The action as such of the respondent apparently is contrary to the judgment passed by the apex Court in AIR 1979 SC 1622 (Gurdaval Singh Fizzi v. State of Punjab and others) and accordingly the petition has to be allowed. 3. The respondents shall hold the review DPC dated 20th December 1989 to consider the case of the petitioner for his promotion to the post of Co-operative Inspector and in case the petitioner is found fit then the petitioner shall be entitled to all monetary benefits. It may further be seen that the said CR since was communicated to the petitioner after much lapse of time, the DPC shall ignore the said CR and then consider the case of the petitioner. Whole exercise shall be done by the respondents within a period of four months. However it is also directed that in case the petitioner has retired then his retrial benefits thereafter shall be recalculated and paid to him. Accordingly the present petition is allowed.