Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 424 (MP)

Naveen Kumar Sarathe v. State of M. P.

2014-04-16

A.M.KHANWILKAR, K.K.TRIVEDI

body2014
Judgment: Heard counsel for the petitioner. 2. Even in this matter, it is indisputable that the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Grade III. In due course of time, he was allowed to work as Clerk-cum- Stenographer. That does not mean that the petitioner was appointed against the substantive post of Stenographer. 3. As in other cases decided today being Writ Petition Nos.21971/2011, the High Court having realized that the arrangement of allowing the Assistant Grade III employees to work as Clerk-cum-Stenographer is not permissible as per the rules, issued directions to all the District Judges to immediately reverse that appointment and also to pass consequential order on the basis of directions given by the High Court to all the District Judges. The order has been passed against the petitioner and similarly placed. 4. Argument of the petitioner is that the recovery has been ordered only against the petitioner and not other persons who are similarly placed. We find no merit in the submissions as it has come on record in companion cases that uniform action has been taken against all the candidates similarly placed as their up-gradation to the post of Stenographer was under mistaken belief and not permissible under rules. 5. The petitioner, in these circumstances, alternatively contends that since the petitioner has already worked on the post of Stenographer, he should not be denied the financial benefits commensurate with the grade of Stenographer for the relevant period. This argument will have to be stated to be rejected. The petitioner will be at best entitled for additional allowance besides the pay scale of Assistant Grade III to which he has been appointed. If the petitioner has already availed of higher grade of Stenographer, the department would be justified in recovering such payment made to the petitioner and similarly placed persons in view of the Apex Court decision in the case of Chandi Prasad Uniyal and others Vs. State of Uttarkhand and others, (2012) 8 SCC 417 . 6. Accordingly, petition is dismissed.