Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 178 (MP)

Sunil Paltanwale v. State of M. P.

2018-02-12

H.P.SINGH, HEMANT GUPTA

body2018
ORDER 1. Challenge in the present appeal is to an order passed by the learned Single Bench on 10.10.2017 whereby Writ Petition No.179/2014 claiming salary for the period from 1.9.2010 to 5.1.2012, remained unsuccessful. 2. The appellant was transferred on 16.8.2010. He filed a writ petition bearing W.P.No.18162/2010 on 13.12.2010 challenging his transfer in which an order of status-quo was granted on 14.12.2010. The said writ petition was decided in Lok Adalat on 13.12.2011 whereby transfer order was quashed and liberty was given to the respondents to pass a fresh order. The order dated 13.12.2011 passed in Writ Petition No.18162/2010 in Lok-Adalat read as under: “This petition is directed against transfer order Annexure P/4. Aforesaid transfer order was stayed by this Court on 14.12.2010. Aforesaid order is still in vogue and a considerable period has expired after staying the transfer order. Considering aforesaid and to the fact that respondents may pass a fresh transfer order in case of administrative exigency, it would be appropriate to dispose of this petition accordingly. In view of aforesaid, the impugned transfer order is quashed. Liberty is granted to the respondents to pass a fresh order on administrative exigency.” 3. Subsequently, the appellant filed a contempt petition (Conc. No.1819/2011) alleging non-compliance of order of status-quo dated 14.12.2010 passed in W.P.No.18162/2010. The said contempt petition was dismissed on 4.9.2012. It was found that the appellant was relieved on 31.8.2010 i.e. four months before the order of status quo was granted. 4. After the orders were passed in the contempt petition, the appellant filed another Writ Petition No.1885/2013, wherein on 6.2.2013, the learned Single Bench directed the petitioner to submit a representation, which was ordered to be decided by the respondents. Thereafter, in pursuance to the said order, on the representation filed by the appellant, an order dated 28.10.2013 was passed by the respondent-Authority that the appellant is not entitled to salary for the intervening period from 1.9.2010 to 5.1.2012. It is said order which was challenged by the appellant in W.P.No.179/2014, which has been dismissed vide impugned order dated 10.10.2017. 5. The appellant claimed salary from 1.9.2010 to 5.1.2012. It means that he was not discharging his duty on the date the order of status quo was passed i.e. 14.12.2010. It is said order which was challenged by the appellant in W.P.No.179/2014, which has been dismissed vide impugned order dated 10.10.2017. 5. The appellant claimed salary from 1.9.2010 to 5.1.2012. It means that he was not discharging his duty on the date the order of status quo was passed i.e. 14.12.2010. Since he was not working on the date of grant of status-quo, the appellant cannot claim salary for the period he abstained from duty on the basis of the order of status quo. There was no order of pay and allowance for the intervening period in the earlier writ petition, where the order of transfer was quashed. The appellant was absent from duty from 1.9.2010 to 5.1.2012, therefore, he cannot claim salary for the said period by way of a writ petition. 6. We do not find any error in the order passed by the learned Single Bench, which may warrant interference in the present intracourt appeal. The same is dismissed.