Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 769 (MP)

Anil Kumar Markhedkar v. State of M. P.

2010-08-02

PIYUSH MATHUR

body2010
ORDER Piyush Mathur, J. 1. This Writ Petition has been filed by the Petitioner claiming the following reliefs : (1) The Respondents be directed to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion from the post of Principal, High School to Principal, Higher Secondary School and extend the benefit of promotion w.e.f. 16.11.2007 i.e. the date of order Annexure P-1 whereby juniors to the petitioner have been promoted and all other consequential benefits arising out of the same and particularly the arrears of salary be directed to be paid. (2) The Respondents be further directed to extend the benefit of arrears of salary for the period from 02.04.2007 to 24.11.2007 i.e. of the intervening period related to promotion from the post of Lecturer to Principal, High School and applicability of the principle of "no work no pay" as incorporated in the order Annexure P-3 may kindly be quashed. 2. Shri Brijesh Sharma Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submit that initially the Petitioner was employed as Lower Division Teacher, who was subsequently promoted as Upper Division Teacher and thereafter as a Lecturer and on account of being One of the Senior Lecturer, he was posted as In-Charge Principal, High School by State Government's Order Dated 03.08.1998 and on the strength of this Order, the petitioner continued to work as In-Charge Principal till Year 2004, whereafter, he was again given the charge of Incharge Principal and was posted at different places uptil Year 2007. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submit that the State Government has conducted the meeting of Departmental Promotion Committee and without considering the case of the petitioner, a Promotion Order was passed on Date 02.04.2007 (Annexure P/8) and those employees who were junior to the petitioner were promoted, ignoring the claim of the petitioner for his promotion. 4. Learned Counsel further submits that subsequently the name of the petitioner was considered and by Order Dated 24.12.2007 he was also promoted on the post of Principal, High School in the pay scale of Rs. 6500-10500, therefore out of the two reliefs claimed by the petitioner in the present Petition, the principal relief of promotion has been granted by the State Government to the petitioner, therefore the petitioner is pressing for the grant of second relief, wherein he claims for disbursement of the difference of salary for the period commencing from Date 02.04.2007 to Date 24.11.2007 (7 Months). 5. Ms. 5. Ms. Nidhi Patankar, Learned Deputy Government Advocate while arguing the case relies upon the Promotion Order Dated 24.12.2007 (Annexure P/3) to demonstrate that the petitioner has been promoted on the post of Principal, High School and his claim for payment of arrears of salary of the promotional post has also been considered by the State Government but it has been denied on account of application of the principal of "no work no pay". 6. Learned Counsel for the State further submit that while issuing another set of promotion orders on Date 26.06.2010 (Annexure R/1) in relation to the post of Principal, Higher Secondary School, the State Government has uniformly ordered that the newly promoted Principals shall not be entitled for the arrears of salary/remuneration of their promotional post, even though the employees, were working on the promotional post for quite some time, as In-Charge Principals on the principle of "no work no pay". 7. I have heard Shri Brijesh Sharma, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Ms. Nidhi Patankar, Learned Deputy Government Advocate for Respondents/State and perused the record. 8. From a perusal of the Orders placed on record, it is evident that the petitioner was assigned with the duty of Incharge Principal w.e.f. Date 03.08.1998, since when the petitioner continue to discharge his duties as Incharge Principal, till issuance of his own Promotion Order Dated 24.12.2007 on the post of Principal, High School, therefore, it is quite evident that the State Government had actually deputed/posted the petitioner to work as Incharge Principal right from the Year 1998, although the petitioner is merely claiming the benefit of arrears of salary from the period commencing from Date 02.04.2007 to Date 24.11.2007 by computing it from the date, his juniors were promoted on Date 02.04.2007, which appears to be logical and reasonable. 9. 9. The Principle of "no work no pay" applies only when an employee who was assigned with the duties of Higher post or same post, fails to discharge his duties on account of some technical difficulty or when no actual work has been done at all by an Employee, but in the present case the petitioner was specifically posted/deputed to function/work as Incharge Principal and he had actually discharged his duties as Incharge Principal for such a long duration, therefore by stretch of no imagination the principle of "no work no pay" could be made applicable to the petitioner and as such the petitioner would be entitled to get arrears of salary for the period commencing from Date 02.04.2007 to Date 24.11.2007 (7 months). 10. Consequently this Writ Petition is allowed in so far it relates to the second relief of payment of arrears of salary to the petitioner and it is held that the Petitioner is legally entitled for the difference and arrears of Salary of the Promotional Post, for the period commencing from Date 02.04.2007 uptill Date 24.11.2007 and the State Government is hereby directed to release the arrears of payment of salary for the period commencing from Date 02.04.2007 to Date 24.11.2007 to the petitioner within a period of Three Months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this Order. 11. With the aforesaid direction, this Writ Petition is allowed and is finally disposed of.