Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 35 (MP)

Tillottama v. Secretary The State of M. P.

2014-01-07

SHANTANU KEMKAR

body2014
Judgment Shantanu Kemkar, J:- This writ appeal has been filed by the appellant under Section 2 of the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 aggrieved of the order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court dated 19.04.2011 in W.P.No.8627/2009 whereby the appellant's prayer for grant of backwages has not been allowed. Some facts which are relevant for the purpose of understanding the grievance of the appellant are as under:- “The petitioner before this court has filed this present petition claiming promotion to the post of Lecturer w.e.f. 1991. The contention of the petitioner is that she was appointed as Upper Division Teacher(UDT) on 13/3/1981 and respondent No.5 was appointed as Upper Division Teacher on 23/3/1981. The petitioner has further stated that she was placed at serial No.1518 of the gradation list showing positions as on 1/4/1981 and respondent No.5 was placed at serial No.1556 . The petitioner has further stated that she was not promoted as Lecturer in the year 1991 and the respondent No,.5 was promoted as a lecturer in the year 1991 and therefore, a writ petition was preferred before this court claiming promotion with effect from 1991. The petitioner has further stated stated that the writ petition preferred by the petitioner claiming promotion to the post of lecturer was disposed of by an order dated 3/8/2009 passed in WP No.1460 of 2009 as the petitioner was promoted vide order dated 4/7/2009 to the post of lecturer and seniority was assigned to the petitioner w.e.f. 12/1/1996. The petitioner has filed this present petition claiming promotion w.e.f. 1991 and during the pendency of the present writ petition the respondents have passed an order dated 14/7/2010 granting promotion to the petitioner w.e.f. 30/7/1991. However, back wages have not been granted to the petitioner. The petitioner is aggrieved by non-payment of back wages and is also claiming consideration of her case for grant of kramonnati(Upgradation). In view of the aforesaid, the learned Single Judge having considered the writ petition filed after a period of 19 years i.e. in the year 2009 after the promotion of the appellant had taken place on 20.03.1995, dismissed the same on the ground of delay. The relevant portion of the order is reproduced hereunder:- Heard the learned counsels for the parties at length and perused the record. The relevant portion of the order is reproduced hereunder:- Heard the learned counsels for the parties at length and perused the record. In the present case it is an admitted fact that the petitioner was appointed in the year 1981 alongwith respondent No.5. The petitioner was certainly senior to respondent No.5 and respondent No.5 was promoted to the post of lecturer in the year 1991. The petitioner for the first time came up before this court by filing a writ petition i.e. WP No.1460 of 2009 and during the pendency of the aforesaid writ petition , the petitioner was promoted to the post of lecturer by an order dated 4/7/2009. The petitioner was granted promotion w.e.f. 20/3/1995 and the petitioner has now filed this petition claiming promotion from the year 1991. The respondents have considered the case of the petitioner and now she has been granted promotion w.e.f. 30/7/1991. However, back wages have not been granted to the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon a judgment delivered by this court in the case of Chandrashekhar Verma vs State of MP and others reported in 2010 Vol.3 MPLJ(463). This court has carefully gone through the aforesaid judgment and in the aforesaid case the petitioner therein was initially denied promotion to the next higher post on account of an original application pending before the MP State Administrative Tribunal. She was later on promoted to the next higher post. However, back wages were not granted to her on the principle of no work no pay. This court has allowed the writ petition preferred by the petitioner by directing the respondents therein to grant of back wages . In the present case, though the petitioner was superseded in the year 1991, came to this court for the first time only in the year 2009 and during the pendency of the writ petition preferred by her i.e. WP No.1460 of 2009, she was granted promotion to the post of lecturer w.e.f. 1995. She has again preferred a writ petition claiming promotion w.e.f. 1991 and the same has been granted to the petitioner vide order dated 14.7/2010. However, she has not been granted back wages by taking into account the principle of no work no pay. She has again preferred a writ petition claiming promotion w.e.f. 1991 and the same has been granted to the petitioner vide order dated 14.7/2010. However, she has not been granted back wages by taking into account the principle of no work no pay. This court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner who slept over her rights for more than a decade is not entitled for grant of back wages in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. This court is of the considered opinion that the respondents have rightly passed the impugned order dated 14/7/2010. However, it is clarified that the petitioner shall be entitled for notional fixation of salary and other consequential benefits except back wages. So far as the question of grant of kramonnati is concerned, respondents have not considered the case of the petitioner keeping in view the policy dated 19/4/1999 and therefore, the respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for grant of kramonnati keeping in view the policy issued by the state government on 19/4/1999. The exercise of considering the case of the petitioner for grant of kramonnati be concluded within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. With the aforesaid , the present writ petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs. We find no infirmity in the aforesaid order. Appeal is dismissed.