Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 608 (MP)

Surendra Kumar Gupta v. State of Madhya Pradesh

2017-05-03

SUJOY PAUL

body2017
ORDER : SUJOY PAUL, J. 1. This matter has a chequred history. The petitioner has fought a long drawn battle in the corridors of court. 2. Draped in brevity, the facts are that the petitioner was initially appointed as a part-time Teacher on 22.07.1991. The respondents issued a Circular dated 20.01.1998 and directed to consider the cases of part-time Teachers on the post of Lecturer or on the post of Laboratory Assistant (Science) as per their eligibility. This Circular was followed by another Circular dated 23.05.1998. Since petitioner was not considered for the post of Lab Assistant, he filed O.A. No.986/1999 before the M.P. Administrative Tribunal (Tribunal). In the meantime, petitioner was also dismissed from service from the post of part-time Teacher. The Tribunal passed the order dated 20.01.2000 (Annexure P-8), which shows that no interference was made against the order dated 21.09.1999, whereby petitioner's services were dispensed with, but directions were issued to consider the case of applicant for appointment as Laboratory Assistant in the light of aforesaid government policies. It was further directed to take a decision expeditiously. Shri Tamrakar submits that no decision was taken by the respondents regarding the aforesaid claim of the petitioner. His contempt petition M.A. No.10/2001 was not entertained by the tribunal on 27.10.2001. Hence the petitioner filed another O.A. No.802/2002 before the tribunal, which on abolishment of the tribunal was transferred to this Court and was re-registered as W.P. No.19116/2003 decided on 14.10.2008. Shri Tamrakar relied on the operative portion of this order passed by the High Court. 3. It is contended that even this order passed in aforesaid writ petition was not complied with because of which petitioner filed contempt petition No.1090/2009 in which order dated 16.05.2012 was passed. This Court expressed that if compliance report is not filed, the Court may take coercive action against the respondents for committing contempt of this Court. After passing of this order only, the order dated 26.7.2012 (Annexure P-12) was passed whereby petitioner was appointed as Lab Assistant on the basis of aforesaid policies with effect from the date of joining of the petitioner. 4. Shri Tamrakar advanced singular contention. He submits that as per the order of the Tribunal (Annexure P-8) which remained undisturbed, it is clear that the petitioner raised his claim to become Laboratory Assistant with quite promptitude. 4. Shri Tamrakar advanced singular contention. He submits that as per the order of the Tribunal (Annexure P-8) which remained undisturbed, it is clear that the petitioner raised his claim to become Laboratory Assistant with quite promptitude. However, because of inaction of the department the period between 1998 to 2012 was wasted. Putting it differently, it is argued that if claim of the petitioner would have been considered promptly as per the policy dated 20.01.1998 and 23.05.1998, the petitioner would have become Laboratory Assistant long back. Since there was a complete lethargy and inaction on the part of the department, the petitioner cannot be deprived from benefit for antedated appointment and consequential benefits. During the course of arguments, Shri Tamrakar confined his relief of antedated appointment and other benefits from the date petitioner approached the Tribunal i.e. 30.11.1999. 5. Per contra, Ms. Sonali Shrivastava, learned counsel for the respondent submits that petitioner was not entitled to be considered for the post of Laboratory Assistant. There was no direction by this Court to grant him antedated appointment or any other benefits. She supported the order dated 26.7.2012 and action of the respondents. No other point is pressed by learned counsel for the parties. 6. This court while deciding W.P. No.19116/2003 opined as under : "Since the petitioner's case relating to the appointment as Lab Assistant in terms of the Circular of the State mentioned above, is yet to be considered and decided by the concerned officers, therefore, it would be proper to issued a direction to the respondents to consider and decide the petitioner's claim for appointment as Lab Assistant in terms of the Circulars of the State mentioned above within a period of four months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. While deciding the petitioner's case, the concerned respondent No.2 will keep in mind the fact that the petitioner had approached the tribunal promptly and the tribunal's order dated 20.01.2000 in O.A. No.986/99 and 27.10.2001 in M.A.10/2001, which were passed in favour of the petitioner, have remained undisturbed. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No orders as to costs." [Emphasis Supplied] 7. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No orders as to costs." [Emphasis Supplied] 7. A bare perusal of this para makes it clear that the respondents were directed to keep in mind the fact that petitioner is pursuing his remedy and claiming appointment since 1999 and, therefore, in my view, the minimum expectation was that the respondents will consider the claim of the petitioner from that date. No doubt, in so many words it has not been said in the earlier order that respondent shall consider the claim of antedated appointment yet the texture and tenure of the order shows the intention and expectation was that respondents will consider the claim of the petitioner from due date. 8. The aforesaid factual backdrop makes it clear that petitioner promptly and consistently pressing relief to become Lab Assistant. The government Circular dated 20.01.1998 and 23.05.1998 were issued for this purpose only. Ultimately, on the basis of these Circulars only, the petitioner was appointed by order dated 26.07.2012. Thus, there is a serious inaction on the part of respondents in not considering the petitioner's claim as per Circular dated 20.01.1998 and 23.05.1998. Considering the aforesaid, I find substance in the arguments of Shri Tamrakar that respondents are required to consider the claim of petitioner for appointment as Laboratory Assistant with effect from the date he filed original application before the tribunal. 9. Accordingly, this petition is disposed of by directing the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner for appointment as Laboratory Assistant from the said date. The respondent shall take a decision in this regard and pass appropriate orders within sixty days from the date of communication of this order. Needless to emphasize, the respondents shall take a decision whether petitioner is entitled to get antedated appointment on the post of Laboratory Assistant from the said date and whether he is entitled to get actual/notional financial benefits and seniority from the said date. The outcome of such consideration shall be communicated to the petitioner within aforesaid time. 10. Before parting with the matter, I deem it proper to deprecate the inaction on the part of respondents in not implementing the court's orders promptly. Thus, it is expected that this order will be complied with strictly within aforesaid time. Any unreasonable delay or lethargy on the post of respondents in implementing this order will be viewed seriously. 11. 10. Before parting with the matter, I deem it proper to deprecate the inaction on the part of respondents in not implementing the court's orders promptly. Thus, it is expected that this order will be complied with strictly within aforesaid time. Any unreasonable delay or lethargy on the post of respondents in implementing this order will be viewed seriously. 11. With the aforesaid observations, this petition is disposed of.