Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 170 (MP)

Manoj Kumar Lahariya v. State of M. P.

2011-02-07

A.K.SHRIVASTAVA

body2011
ORDER 1. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is seeking following reliefs :- (1) That the impugned order Annexure P/1 so far as it relates to the posting of the petitioner on lower post of Constable be quashed directing the respondents to post the petitioner on the post of Head Constable G.D. or its equivalent post and extend all the benefits of the post of Head Constable G.D. to the petitioner. (2) Cost of the petition be awarded or (3) Any other suitable order or direction deemed fit in the circumstances of the case be issued in favour of the petitioner. 2. No exhaustive statement of facts are required to be narrated for the disposal of this petition, since the facts are admitted and unfolded. Admittedly, the petitioner was serving in the State of Chhattisgarh on the post of Constable; he submitted an application to allocate his services on mutual basis to the State of Madhya Pradesh on the post of Constable in the year 2005. In the meantime, the petitioner was promoted to the post of Head Constable in the State of Chhattisgarh, thereafter vide impugned order dated 1.6.2010 the petitioner's service has been allocated to the State of Madhya Pradesh but on the post of Constable. 3. Accordingly to me, the action of the respondents is not only arbitrary but dehors to the promotion rules. Had the petitioner been allocated to the State of Madhya Pradesh in the year 2005, when he submitted requisite application while he was serving on the post of Constable on mutual basis, the matter would have been certainly different, but after a lapse of five years, when the petitioner has been promoted to the post of Head Constable, if his service has been allocated to the State of Madhya Pradesh on the post of Constable I am of the view that it amounts to reversion because allocation would not only put the loss of the pay scale, but in the cadre also. Therefore, he cannot be reverted to the post of Constable putting him the loss of the pay scale but in the cadre also. 4. Accordingly to me the action of the respondents is wholly arbitrary and contrary to the Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, he cannot be reverted to the post of Constable putting him the loss of the pay scale but in the cadre also. 4. Accordingly to me the action of the respondents is wholly arbitrary and contrary to the Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Hence, the impugned order Annexure P/1 is modified to the extent that instead of the post of Constable the petitioner's allocation be treated on the post of Head Constable and he shall be deemed to be allowed on the post of Head Constable for all practical purpose, including salary and all other consequential benefits. 5. This petition is accordingly, allowed and disposed of.