Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 146 (MP)

Mohanlal Sahu v. State of M. P.

2018-02-05

HEMANT GUPTA, VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA

body2018
JUDGMENT Shukla, J. -- 1. In this intra-Court appeal filed under section 2(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005, a challenge has been made to the order dated 14.7.2017 passed by the learned Single Judge whereby the prayer of the petitioner/appellant for grant of interest on the delayed payment of arrears has been rejected. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner/appellant filed a Writ Petition No.6307/2005 seeking a direction for promotion to the post of Junior Technical Assistant. The said petition was disposed of in the following terms:- “In view of the aforesaid and the statement made by the respondents in paragraph 4 of the return, the petition is disposed of with the direction to the respondents-authorities to consider the case of the petitioner for making promotion on the post of Junior Technical Assistant and take a decision thereon in accordance with the rules and law within four months from the date of production of the copy of the order passed today. The petition is disposed of with the aforesaid direction C.C. as per rules” After the order of this Court, the petitioner/appellant was promoted to the post of Junior Technical Assistant by order dated 23.10.2009 but he was denied the salary of the promoted post on the principle of “No Work No Pay”. 3. The petitioner/appellant filed second Writ Petition No.3810/2010 challenging the decision of the respondents denying the salary of the promoted post. Considering his submission that “No Work No Pay” would not apply in a case where the fault was with the employer and the employee was deprived of the promotion because of the incorrect position in the gradation list. The Court referring the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of R.B. Guhe v. The State of Madhya Pradesh [ 2008 (5) MPHT 291 (DB)] allowed the petition in the following terms:- “Consequently, the petition of the petitioner, is allowed. The impugned order Annexure-P/1 dated 23.10.2009 by which the petitioner has been denied the salary to the promotional post of Junior Technical Assistant, is hereby quashed. It is ordered that the petitioner shall be entitled for his salary to the post of promotional post from 5.1.1989. The arrears be paid to the petitioner accordingly. The impugned order Annexure-P/1 dated 23.10.2009 by which the petitioner has been denied the salary to the promotional post of Junior Technical Assistant, is hereby quashed. It is ordered that the petitioner shall be entitled for his salary to the post of promotional post from 5.1.1989. The arrears be paid to the petitioner accordingly. The order of this Court be complied with within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order” 4. The petitioner/appellant filed third Writ Petition No.9732/2017 seeking a direction for payment of the interest on the arrears of salary for the promoted post for the period from 5.1.1999 till August, 2012. The learned Single Judge vide order dated 14.7.2017 dismissed the writ petition on the ground that the claim of the petitioner/appellant for arrears of salary has already been examined by this Court in its order dated 27.4.2012 in Writ Petition No.3810/2010 and the petitioner/appellant has been directed to be paid arrears of the salary. Since this Court has not passed any order or direction for grant of interest, therefore, the petitioner/appellant cannot claim the said relief as the same is barred by the principle of constructive res-judicata. 5. The learned Single Judge has also noted that the respondents have examined the case of the petitioner/appellant regarding interest on the arrears of salary in their order dated 30.5.2017 and rejected the said claim on the ground that there is no provision or circular of the State Government for payment of interest on the arrears of salary. Once the writ petition was already adjudicated, the petitioner/appellant could not have filed successive petitions claiming reliefs in a piecemeal manner. 6. We do not find merit in the contention of the petitioner/appellant that he is entitled for the salary because this Court has directed for the payment of the arrears of salary. The arrears of salary have been paid to the petitioner/appellant as directed by this Court and, therefore, the petitioner/appellant cannot claim the relief of interest on the arrears of salary. 7. We do not find any error in the order passed by the learned Single Judge and no interference is warranted in the present intra-Court appeal. Hence the appeal is dismissed. Ashok Kumar Gupta for appellant; Amit Seth, Government Advocate for respondents/State.