Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1365 (MP)

Ram Swaroop Samadhia v. State of M. P.

2013-11-12

RAJENDRA MENON

body2013
JUDGMENT Rajendra Menon, J. 1. Challenging the order dated 29.5.2009 Annexure P/1 passed by the department refusing to grant pay to the petitioner on the principle of "No work no wages" on his promotion on the post of Head Master retrospectively, petitioner has filed this writ petition. Petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Teacher on 21.8.1961. He was thereafter promoted as an Upper Division Teacher vide order dated 30.7.1992. Even though this order of promotion as an Upper Division Teacher was passed in the year 1992 it was made retrospective and the benefit of seniority on promotion to the post of Upper Division Teacher was granted to the petitioner w.e.f. 31.10.1966 but actual monetary benefit was granted from the date of assuming the charge of Upper Division Teacher. Copy of orders appointing the petitioner as Assistant Teacher and promoting him as Upper Division Teacher are Annexure P/2 and P/3 respectively. It is a case of the petitioner that respondent No. 4 namely Smt. Kultar Kaur was junior to the petitioner as she was only appointed as an Assistant Teacher on 9.1.1962 but still she was promoted as an Upper Division Teacher w.e.f. 27.8.1962 and further as a Head Mistress on 31.10.1966 vide Annexure P/4, P/5 and P/6. However, as respondent No. 4 Smt. Kultar Kaur was granted promotion as an Upper Division Teacher w.e.f. 27.8.1962 and as a Head Mistress w.e.f. 31.10.1966, petitioner also claimed promotion retrospectively on the post of Head Master retrospectively w.e.f. 31.10.1966. However, even though this benefit was granted but when the intervening period was treated on the principle of "No work no wages" it seems that petitioner sent a legal notice vide Annexure P/7 on 31.5.1993 and when nothing was done, he filed an application before the State Administrative Tribunal which was transferred to the High Court and registered as W.P. No. 23009/2003. It was found by the High Court that in the order promoting the petitioner as Head Master w.e.f. 31.10.1966 the intervening period was treated on the principle of "No work no wages" but as no reason was given for treating the period so, the writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the department to consider and decide the representation by a speaking order. The same having been done vide Annexure P/1 dated 29.5.2009 petitioner has filed this writ petition. 2. The same having been done vide Annexure P/1 dated 29.5.2009 petitioner has filed this writ petition. 2. Shri D.K. Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that admittedly, respondent No. 4 was junior to the petitioner, having been appointed as an Assistant Teacher on 9.1.1962 and she was promoted earlier as a Head Mistress w.e.f. 31.10.1966 but this promotion was granted to the petitioner only on 30.7.1992 retrospectively w.e.f. 31.10.1966 that also without arrears of salary on the principle of "No work no wages". It is argued by Shri D. K. Tripathi that the petitioner was prevented from working on the post of Head Master due to the fault of the respondents and treating the intervening period on the principle of "No work no wages" is illegal and arbitrary. It is stated by Shri D. K. Tripathi that petitioner was entitled for full salary and allowances and in denying the same, an illegality has been committed by the respondents. 3. Learned counsel for the State pointed out that respondent No. 4 was appointed as a Head Mistress w.e.f. 30.10.1966 vide order Annexure P/5 issued on 31.10.1966. It is said that when this order was issued on 31.10.1966 by the Divisional Superintendent of Education, Bhopal, the petitioner did not agitate the matter. It was for the first time in the year 1992 that just before his retirement petitioner agitated the matter and he was granted the benefit. Thereafter the petitioner retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 30th June 1993 and the proceedings were initiated by him much after his retirement in the year 1993. It is said that the petitioner having kept quite from 31.10.1966 when the order Annexure P/6 was passed promoting respondent No. 4 as an Head Mistress, the petitioner cannot claim any benefit by initiating the proceedings just after his retirement. Inter alia contending that the inordinate delay on the part of the petitioner in approaching the Court in time disentitles him from claiming any monetary benefit, learned counsel for the State seeks for dismissal of this writ petition. That apart, learned counsel submits that the petitioner having not worked on the higher post, he is cannot claim benefit of salary on the higher post. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the rival contentions. That apart, learned counsel submits that the petitioner having not worked on the higher post, he is cannot claim benefit of salary on the higher post. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the rival contentions. Normally when a promotion is denied to an employee and there is no fault on the part of the employee in the matter of denying promotion, he is entitled to salary and allowances on the promoted post. However, when such a question is to be considered, the question of delay and latches and the attitude of an employee in sleeping over the matter has to be taken note of and if it is found that an employee has slept over the matter for an inordinately long period of time, discretionary relief of the nature prayed for can very well be denied. In this case petitioner is claiming parity with respondent No. 4 Smt. Kultar Kaur, who was promoted as an Head Mistress vide order Annexure P/6 on 30th October 1966. From 1966 upto 1992 and till the legal notice was issued on 31.5.1993, petitioner kept quite over the matter. For a period of more than 27 years petitioner did not agitate the non grant of promotion to him. It was only in the year 1992 from the documents and the pleadings of the petitioner it is seen that for the first time he is seen to have sent a legal notice vide Annexure P/7 on 31.5.1993 i.e. just a month before his retirement. That apart, he was granted promotion vide order Annexure P/3 passed on 23.11.1992. The petitioner initiated the proceedings claiming benefit at par with respondent No. 4 only in the year 1993 i.e. just a month before his retirement, that also without having discharging the duties on the higher post and without having worked on the higher post. If the petitioner was really aggrieved by his supersession by respondent No. 4 which occurred when Annexure P/6 was passed in the year 1966, petitioner should have agitated the matter in right earnest within a reasonable time. keeping quite for a period of more than 27 years and agitate the matter for the first time in the year 1993 disentitles the petitioner from claiming any relief on the ground of inordinate delay and latches in initiating the proceedings. keeping quite for a period of more than 27 years and agitate the matter for the first time in the year 1993 disentitles the petitioner from claiming any relief on the ground of inordinate delay and latches in initiating the proceedings. It was not at all necessary for the petitioner to wait and claim the benefit at the time of retirement. If the petitioner had any grievance with regard to his non promotion in the year 1966 and his supersession by respondent No. 4 which occurred on 30th October 1966, he should have agitated the matter in right earnest in the year 1966 itself or within a reasonable time thereof. This having not been done by the petitioner, the delay inordinate disentitles the petitioner from claiming any relief. Accordingly, finding no ground to grant any further relief of arrears for the period in question, this petition is dismissed.