Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1 (MP)

M. P. Electricity Board v. Ravish Chandra Bais

2014-01-02

D.K.PALIWAL, S.K.GANGELE

body2014
ORDER 1. Heard on admission. 2. This appeal has been filed against the order date 9.8.2012 passed by the learned writ Court in W.P.No.1945/2004 (S). 3. The claim of the respondent before the writ Court was in regard to grant of benefit of higher pay scale. It is an admitted fact that the respondent was granted higher pay scale from 2006, however, he was eligible to receive higher pay scale from the year 1994. He was not found fit for grant of higher pay scale by the Committee on account of some ACR entries. It is an admitted fact that when Committee considered the case of the respondent for grant of higher pay scale, the representations against the aforesaid ACR entries were pending. The factual position has been considered by the Writ Court in paras 6,7 and 8 in the order under challenge. The findings are as under :- “6. In the meanwhile, the petitioner submitted his opinion vide Annexure P/4 dated 26.11.1996 for his second upgradation in the pay scale admissible in the cadre of Executive Engineer in terms of the Scheme dated 19.7.1990 (Annexure P/2). The petitioner’s option after being considered for the first time was rejected vide Annexure R/4 dated 1.9.1997 by informing the petitioner that the selection committee had not found him fit till 31.3.1997 since he was not making the C.R. Grades and further informed the petitioner that his case will be reviewed after receipt of the next C.R. The said decision of not finding the petitioner fit for second upgradation continued to be taken by selection committees, which met in 1997 vide Annexure R/5, in 1999 vide Annexure R/6, in 1999 vide Annexure R/7, in 2004 vide Annexure R/8 and in 2005 vide Annexure R/9. 7. It is pertinent to point out before proceeding ahead that the petitioner was communicated with another adverse remarks for the appraisal years 1999-2000 by letter dated 30.12.2000, which was received by the petitioner on 17.4.2001 (Annexure P/8). A representation Annexure P/9 was preferred by the petitioner against the said adverse remarks of 1999-2000, which ultimately came to be rejected by Annexure R/2 dated 10.2.2003. 8. A representation Annexure P/9 was preferred by the petitioner against the said adverse remarks of 1999-2000, which ultimately came to be rejected by Annexure R/2 dated 10.2.2003. 8. From the above factual details, it is evident that as regards appraisal year 1994-95, the representation preferred by the petitioner on 29.11.1995 was pending till 6.8.1999 and as regards adverse remarks of 1990-2000, the representation dated 7.6.2001 was pending till 10.2.2003, when it was rejected.” 4. From the aforesaid findings of the writ Court, which are in accordance with law and based on proper appreciation of facts, it is clear that when the Committee considered the case of the respondent for grant of higher pay scale, representations against ACR entries were pending and those were not decided. In such circumstances, in our opinion, the writ Court has rightly held that the decision of the committee was not proper and issued directions in this regard. In our opinion, the order passed by the Court is in accordance with law. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the costs imposed by the Writ Court be waived. Counsel for the respondent has no objection in this regard. Hence, the costs imposed by the writ Court of Rs.5,000/- is hereby waived. 6. It is further directed that the order passed by the Writ Court be complied with within a period of three months, failing which respondent shall be entitled the costs as imposed by the writ Court. 7. With the aforesaid modification in the order under challenge, the writ appeal is disposed of. No order as to costs.