Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 616 (MP)

Rakesh Kumar Sharma v. State of M. P.

2025-10-13

ASHISH SHROTI

body2025
ORDER 1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 22.4.2021 (Annexure P/1) passed by District Education Officer, Morena, whereby, the order dated 25.1.2019, granting the benefit of regular pay-scale to the petitioner w.e.f. 16.7.1975, has been cancelled. 2. The facts necessary for decision of this case are that the petitioner participated in recruitment process for appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher and after having selected, he was sent for necessary training vide order dated 16.7.1975 (Annexure P/2). Pertinently, under Clause (4) of this order, the petitioner was asked to produce all his certificates/mark-sheets in original before the Principal of the School. Clause (8) of the order provides that after passing the examination, he would be given regular appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher. Vide subsequent order dated 27.2.1979 (Annexure P/3), the petitioner was given appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher in regular pay-scale on his successfully completing the training and passing the departmental examination. The petitioner served the department and retired from the aforesaid post w.e.f. October' 2020. 3. Before his retirement, an order was passed by the respondent/District Education Officer on 25.1.2019 (Annexure P/5), whereby, the benefit of regular pay-scale of the post was given to the petitioner w.e.f. his initial date of appointment i.e. 21.7.1975. Even though, the order was passed, the monetary benefits flowing from the said order, was not extended to the petitioner. It be noted here that as many as 21 other incumbents were given the same benefit by the same order. Petitioner retired in October' 2020. The respondent/District Education officer, thereafter passed the order dated 22.4.2021 (Annexure P/1), thereby, cancelling the order dated 25.1.2019 in relation to petitioner. Aforesaid impugned order has been passed on the ground that on the date of initial appointment i.e. 16.7.1975, the petitioner had not completed 18 years of age and, therefore, was not eligible to be appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher. As per the PPO issued to the petitioner, the benefit of regular pay-scale of the post has been extended to him w.e.f. October' 1977. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner challenged the impugned order on the ground that the petitioner was duly selected and appointment and was sent for training vide order dated 16.7.1975. Before such selection, he had duly submitted his certificates/mark-sheets before the Principal of the School as per Clause (4) of the order. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner challenged the impugned order on the ground that the petitioner was duly selected and appointment and was sent for training vide order dated 16.7.1975. Before such selection, he had duly submitted his certificates/mark-sheets before the Principal of the School as per Clause (4) of the order. It is his submission that petitioner has not suppressed anything from the respondents and respondents were very much aware about his date of birth. The learned counsel also submitted that the petitioner has rendered his services to the respondent Department pursuant to order dated 16.7.1975 without any complaint and therefore, he could not have denied benefit of regular pay scale merely because he had not completed 18 years of age as on 16.7.1975, particularly when the benefit has been given to all similarly situated persons. 5. The learned counsel also submitted that there is nothing on record to show that the age of 18 years was required for sending the incumbent for training. It is his submission that the petitioner applied for obtaining information in this regard under Right To Information Act, 2005, however, vide order dated 19.4.2021 (Annexure P/14), the Office of Zila Panchayat, Morena has informed that the records are not available. He submitted that passing of impugned order without affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner is illegal and further once the petitioner retired from service, the respondent/District Education Officer, was not competent to pass the impugned order because the employer-employee relationship between the petitioner and respondent/authority ceased to exist. Therefore, he submits that cancellation of order dated 25.1.2019 was illegal and the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 6. On the other hand, counsel for the State supported the impugned action of the respondents and submitted that admittedly, the petitioner was not 18 years of age on the date of his initial appointment in year 1975. Referring to documents, Annexure R/1 & R/2, he submitted that the minimum age of appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher was 21 years, and therefore, the petitioner was not even eligible for being appointed. The learned counsel also submitted that vide impugned order, respondent/District Education Officer corrected the mistake, for which no opportunity of hearing was required to be given to the petitioner. The learned counsel also submitted that vide impugned order, respondent/District Education Officer corrected the mistake, for which no opportunity of hearing was required to be given to the petitioner. He further submitted that even after the petitioner's retirement, the relationship between the petitioner and the respondent/authorities continuous so far as decision to extend financial benefits to the employee is concerned. As such, the impugned order passed by respondents is legal and valid and does not warrant any interference. 7. Considered the arguments and perused the record. 8. The facts which are not in dispute are that petitioner was selected for appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher and was sent for training pursuant to order dated 16.7.1975. His date of birth being 7.10.1958, it is also not in dispute that as on 16.7.1975, the petitioner was short of 18 years of age. The respondents have also not disputed that the similar situated persons are entitled to get the benefit of regular pay-scale from the date of their sending on training. In other words, if the petitioner had completed 18 years of age as on 16.7.1975, he would be entitled to get the aforesaid benefit. Thus, the only issue to be considered in this case is as to whether, denial of benefit of regular pay-scale to petitioner on account of is not having completed 18 years of age as on 16.7.1975, is sustainable or not? 9. Even though, learned counsel for the State referred to documents filed as Annexures R/1 & R/2 to show that the minimum age of appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher was 21 years, however, that is not the stand taken by the respondents in their return. Further, this also not the reason assigned in the impugned order. He has been denied benefit of regular pay scale only because he had not completed 18 years of age. Further, the fact that the petitioner has been extended benefit of regular pay scale with effect from October' 1977 shows that the reason assigned in impugned order is incorrect inasmuch as he had not completed 18 years of age in October' 1977 also. 10. By the order, dated 16.7.1975, the petitioner was asked to produce his original certificates and mark-sheets with the Principal of the School. 10. By the order, dated 16.7.1975, the petitioner was asked to produce his original certificates and mark-sheets with the Principal of the School. The petitioner had continued in service till year 2020 pursuant to this order, it has to be presumed that he has produced his certificates/mark-sheet before the Principal of the School and after verification of the same, he was allowed to continue in service even though he was short of 18 years. Thus, the factum of having not completed 18 years of age was very well within the knowledge of the respondents. 11. Apart from the objection that the petitioner has not completed 18 years of age, there is no other reason assigned by respondents for denying the benefit of regular pay-scale to the petitioner from 16.7.1975. The order dated 16.7.1975 is intact and pursuant thereto, the petitioner imparted training and thereafter given regular appointment, therefore, after lapse of about 45 years of selection and appointment of petitioner pursuant to the order dated 16.7.1975, the respondents cannot be allowed to raise dispute regarding his age at the time of appointment. The fact that his initial appointment is in dispute, it would not be appropriate the benefit of regular pay scale to the petitioner, merely because he had not completed 18 years of age. No doubt, on this ground the petitioner could have been denied appointment on the post, however, the respondents themselves allowed him appointment and to serve the department for about 45 years, the objection available to them is deemed to have been waived. Admittedly, the benefit has already been extended to everyone else as is reflected from order, dated 25.1.2019. 12. Considering the aforesaid, the impugned order dated 22.4.2021 (Annexure P/1) is set aside. The respondents are directed to give effect to order dated 25.1.2019 (Annexure P/5) in relation to the petitioner. 13. At this stage, petitioner has also claimed interest on the delayed payment of his retiral dues. It is his submission that the petitioner was not paid his retiral dues immediately after his retirement. The provision pension was paid to him only after filing this petition and issuance of notices by this Court. Further, the other retiral dues were paid to him on 13.10.2022. He thus, submits that there is a delay of about 2 years in making payment of his retiral dues for which, petitioner is entitled to interest. 14. The provision pension was paid to him only after filing this petition and issuance of notices by this Court. Further, the other retiral dues were paid to him on 13.10.2022. He thus, submits that there is a delay of about 2 years in making payment of his retiral dues for which, petitioner is entitled to interest. 14. Counsel for the State in his turn justifies the delay by submitting that because of pendency of present writ petition, the retiral dues of the petitioner could not be settled. 15. The explanation offered by the respondents for delay is not acceptable. After passing of impugned order, there was no impediment in making payment of admissible retiral dues to the petitioner immediately. Thus, the payment of retiral dues made in October' 2022 is held to be delayed and therefore, the petitioner is held entitled for interest on the retiral dues paid to him in October' 2022 @ 6% per annum w.e.f. 1.11.2020. 16. Let action, as directed in para 12 & 15 of this order, be taken within a period of 90 days from the date of submission of certified copy of this order. The petition stands allowed and disposed of accordingly.