Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 816 (MP)

State of Madhya Pradesh (The) v. Nand Kumar Tomar

2022-06-15

RAVI MALIMATH, VISHAL MISHRA

body2022
ORDER 1. I t is submitted that Shri D.S. Thakur, learned counsel for the writ petitioners is no more. Hence, office to delete his name. However, the Vakalat also indicates the name of Shri R.Sen - Advocate and hence, Vakalat would continue in the name of Shri R. Sen - Advocate. 2. Being aggrieved by the order dated 25.11.2004 passed by the learned Single Judge in allowing the W.P. No.8723 of 2004 and directing the respondents to give seniority to the petitioners with effect from 12.2.1988 and payment of difference of wages, the State is in appeal. 3. The case of the writ petitioners is that the posts of the Upper Division Teacher (UDT) were advertised. The selection process was challenged before this Court in Miscellaneous Petition No.3816 of 1987. The instant writ petitioners had filed an application for intervention therein. The said miscellaneous petition was transferred to the State Administrative Tribunal and was numbered as O.A. No.3350 of 1988. The same was dismissed. 4. The petitioners filed O.A. No.1983 of 1991, which was dismissed by the Tribunal in view of the fact that earlier petitions were also dismissed. However, no order on merits was passed. In spite of the same, the respondents did not issue appointment letters to the writ petitioners. Hence, they filed O.A. No.439 of 1992. The same was allowed by the Tribunal on 11.6.1992 by observing that no person can be made to suffer by a wrong order passed by the Court. In pursuance of the order passed by the Tribunal, appointment letters were issued to the writ petitioners appointing them from the said date. Questioning the same, the instant petition was filed on the ground that the arrears should be paid for the delay in making the appointment. 5. The learned Single Judge came to the view that the Court's action should not prejudice any party and therefore, directed the respondents to give seniority to the petitioners with effect from 12.2.1988 and also to pay the difference of wages. Questioning the same, the State is in appeal. 6. The plea of the appellants is that so far as seniority is concerned, the same may be given effect to as ordered by the learned Single Judge. However, the question of granting the difference of wages would be incorrect. That the learned Single Judge himself holds that the act of Court should not prejudice anyone. 6. The plea of the appellants is that so far as seniority is concerned, the same may be given effect to as ordered by the learned Single Judge. However, the question of granting the difference of wages would be incorrect. That the learned Single Judge himself holds that the act of Court should not prejudice anyone. The same includes the State also. The State is not responsible for the delay in issuing the appointment orders. Therefore, the petitioners would not be entitled for the relief. 7. On hearing the learned counsel, we are of the view that appropriate interference is called for. 8. So far as the orders of appointment are concerned, we are of the view that the same should be given effect to from the date they were initially prepared that is with effect from 12.2.1988. However, so far as the payment of difference of wages from 12.2.1988 till the date of appointment is concerned, we are of the view that grant of the same is inappropriate. The State cannot be burdened with payment of money which they are not liable to make. For this reason, the appeal is allowed for the limited purposes. 9. Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed. The order dated 25.11.2004 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No.8723 of 2004 is partly set aside. The order of the learned Single Judge directing the respondents to give seniority t o the petitioners on the post of Upper Division Teacher with effect from 12.2.1988 is confirmed. The order directing payment of difference of wages is set aside. 10. The appeal is disposed off accordingly.