Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 341 (MP)

Jyoti Agrawal v. State of M. P.

2014-03-26

A.K.SHARMA, RAJENDRA MENON

body2014
Judgment: Calling in question tenability of an order dated 14.8.2007 passed by the writ court in W.P. No.2114/1999 this writ appeal was filed on 19.3.2008. It is listed today on the question of admission and condonation of delay after more than 6 years. 2. The original writ petition was filed by late Ajay Agrawal and the appellants herein are wife and children of Late Ajay Agrawal. It is seen that Shri Ajay Agrawal was working in the Special Area Development Authority, Malajkhand as a Sub Engineer and after the said authority was abolished, the said area was merged with the Municipal Council Malajkhand. Certain dispute arisen with regard to payment of salary and subsistence allowance and enquiry was conducted against Shri Ajay Agrawal. The matter came to this Court in W.P. No.2114/1999 and three sets of relief were claimed. One was for payment of arrears of salary for the period when the employee has remained under suspension. The second relief was with regard to certain leave to be granted and regularizing the same and the third relief was with regard to payment of arrears of salary from Smt. Jyoti Agrawal & Ors. Vs. State of M.P. & Ors. 15.7.1993 to 7.12.1997. 3. As far as the two reliefs with regard to payment of salary for the period of suspension and regularizing the leave, when the matter was being heard by learned Single Judge on 14.8.2007, it was said that both these reliefs have already been granted to the petitioner and, therefore, these two reliefs have been rendered infructuous and now the only dispute before the learned writ court was with regard to payment of arrears of salary from 15.7.1993 to 7.12.1997. It was the case of original petitioner Shri Ajay Agrawal that he was willing to join and perform his duties but the Municipal Council prevented him from working and therefore, on such ground salary could not be denied to him. On the contrary, it was the case of respondents, particularly the Municipal Council that the employee did not work for the aforesaid period, he tendered his resignation, sat at home and subsequently withdrew his resignation. On the contrary, it was the case of respondents, particularly the Municipal Council that the employee did not work for the aforesaid period, he tendered his resignation, sat at home and subsequently withdrew his resignation. Taking note of all these facts, the conduct of petitioner was analyzed by the writ court and in para 8 & 9 of the order the writ court has held that looking to the conduct of the petitioner his contention that he was willing to work does not seems to be correct. It was found that if petitioner was willing to work and the respondents have not permitted him to work, then the petitioner should have approached the competent authority or the court, but the petitioner has kept quiet from 16.7.1993 for more than four years upto 07.12.1997, in between submitted his resignation Smt. Jyoti Agrawal & Ors. Vs. State of M.P. & Ors. from service, thereafter withdrew the same. The learned writ court came to the conclusion that employee was not willing to work, therefore, he is not entitled to salary. 4. In view of above, findings recorded by the writ court is a reasonable finding based on due appreciation of evidence and material available on record and we see no perversity in the same warranting reconsideration. 5. Accordingly, finding no ground for interference in the matter the appeal is dismissed.