Madhya Pradesh High Court
Suresh Singh Tomar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 16 August, 2021
Author: Nandita Dubey
1 WP-27206-2018
The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
WP-27206-2018
(SURESH SINGH TOMAR Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS)
Gwalior, Dated : 16-08-2021
Heard through Video Conferencing.
Shri Vijay Sundaram, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Vijay Pathak, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
The petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution aggrieved by the order dated 31.12.2016 passed in
Court/2017/6836 by respondent No.3/District Education, Officer, Morena.
The grievance of the petitioner is that he has not been granted benefit
of increments and other consequential benefits from the initial date of
appointment and his pay fixation is being made from the date of his
confirmation. It is stated that similar situated employee has already been
granted the benefit from the initial date of appointment.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the case of Ram
Niwas Awasthi vs. State of M.P. and others , W.P. No.2430/2006, dated
04.7.2019, passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court, wherein the cases of
such similarly situated employees have been considered, who were initially
appointed as teacher on temporary basis vide order dated 27.2.1981. They
were discontinued from services and thereafter given fresh appointment vide
order dated 05.7.1995.
The Court, after considering the facts and circumstances of the case,
has directed thus:
"Admittedly, the respondents vide order dated 24/01/2014
(Annexure P-12) had taken a decision in the light of Apex Court order with
regard to employees who were initially terminated but subsequently
reappointed following Fundamental Rule 17 with the condition that period
from the date of termination till the date of reappointment of the employee,
shall be counted for the purpose of treating them in regular employment but
shall not be entitled for salary and other allowance on the basis of principle
2 WP-27206-2018
o f "No Work No Pay" . From bare perusal of (Annexure P-14) dated
15/03/2016, it can be seen that the respondents have extended the benefits of
counting of service to similarly situated employee of other districts on the
principle of "No Work No Pay".
In view of the aforegoing discussion and in the facts and
circumstances of the case, respondents are directed to extend the benefit to
the petitioner as has been extended to the similarly situated employee by
counting period from 1981 to 1995 as per Fundamental Rules 17 for the
purpose of treating the petitioner in employment and pass necessary order
within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of the
order passed today. The petitioner shall also entitle for consequential benefits
from that date. The consequential benefits be extended to the petitioner
within a period of three months thereafter. The petition stands allowed to the
extent indicated herein above. No order as to cost."
In the present case also the petitioner was initially appointed as
Assistant Teacher on 09.3.1981 and thereafter his service was discontinued
and he was again appointed on 14.9.1995 in the pay scale of 1200-2040. The
case of the petitioner is similar to the case of Ram Niwas Awasthi (supra).
Since, it is not in dispute that this matter is identical to Ram Niwas
Awasthi (supra), I deem it proper to apply the aforesaid judgment mutatis
mutandis in the present case.
Accordingly, this petition is allowed in terms of order passed in Ram
Niwas Awasthi (supra).
(NANDITA DUBEY)
JUDGE
SS
ASHISH
Digitally signed by ASHISH KOSHTA
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH,
ou=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH,
postalCode=482001, st=Madhya Pradesh,
2.5.4.20=758ad7a4e32c4dd02143c76c9ddd233a87d75
af6ac576b1a0bb4d55dfac7c3c6,
KOSHTA
pseudonym=26612DBF8F88D6377DB9E3A27A8522BC
9FED529F,
serialNumber=C4DAA1D227B8AF4922DDE70E5D7FAC
9F3449368CD9024CF39D0F7E421B35BB46,
cn=ASHISH KOSHTA
Date: 2021.08.17 17:50:34 +05'30'
