Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ramesh Chandra Sharma vs Secretary The State Of Madhya ... on 24 January, 2023
Author: Vivek Agarwal
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWAL
ON THE 24 th OF JANUARY, 2023
WRIT PETITION No. 913 of 2010
BETWEEN:-
RAMESH CHANDRA SHARMA S/O SHRI R.P.SHARMA,
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, OCCUPATION: OFFICIATING
EXECUTIVE ENGINEER R/O MADHAI KA BAGICHA,
AGRAWAL WARD, KATNI (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI NILESH KOTECHA, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. SECRETARY THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
DEPTT. OF LOCAL SELF GOVT. VALLABH
BHAWAN, BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. MAYOR OCCUPATION: MUNICIPAL
CORPORATION MJUDWARA, KATNI (MADHYA
PRADESH)
3. MUNICIPAL COMMISSIONER MUDWARA
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION KATNI (MADHYA
PRADESH)
4. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OCCUPATION: OFFICE OF
THE RESIDENT AUDITOR MUNICIPAL
CORPORATION KATNI, DISTRICT KATNI (M.P.)
(MADHYA PRADESH)
5. SANJAY PANDEY OCCUPATION: PRESENTLY
ASSISTANT ENGINEER, MUNICIPAL
CORPORATION JABALPUR A.E. MUNICIPAL
CORPORATION KATNI (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
Signature Not Verified
SAN
(BY SHRI VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA, PANEL LAWYER FOR THE STATE)
(BY SHRI UTKARSH AGRAWAL, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.6
Digitally signed by MOHD TABISH KHAN
This petition coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
Date: 2023.01.25 19:46:51 IST
2
following:
ORDER
This petition is filed being aggrieved of order dated 06.11.2007 passed
by the Assistant Director, Nagar Palika Niagam, Katni whereby petitioner who
was granted proforma promotion on the post of Assistant Engineer in terms of
the order of the High Court passed in M.P. No.2128/1988 decided vide order
dated 01.04.2005 has been denied back wages on the promotional post on the
principle of 'no work no pay'.
Shri Nilesh Kotecha submits that High Court while deciding
Miscellaneous Petition had categorically directed that the respondents will
convene a review DPC for consideration of the case of the petitioner vis a vis
respondent No.6 in accordance with law. It further directed that review DPC
shall be held by the respondents within a period of three months from today. It
is further pointed out that High Court directed the parties to maintain status quo
as on today for a period of three months and not to revert respondent No.6
from his present post. It further observed that respondents were at liberty to
give due seniority and promotion to the petitioner if respondents decide not to
disturb the position of respondent No.6 as on the date, but the petitioner shall
not be deprived any of his legitimate benefits and consequential reliefs merely
on this ground.
Reading from this order, it is submitted that private respondent No.6 had
preferred SLP which was dismissed vide order dated 09.05.2005. Thereafter
review DPC was convened, petitioner was given promotion but vide impugned
order principle of 'no work no pay' is made applicable though it is not
Signature Not Verified
SAN
applicable under the facts and circumstances of the case, inasmuch as, for no
fault on the petitioner as is evident from the order dated 01.04.2005, petitioner's
Digitally signed by MOHD TABISH KHAN
Date: 2023.01.25 19:46:51 IST
case was rejected by the DPC.
At this stage, Shri Vijay Kumar Shukla, learned Panel Lawyer for the
State submits that petitioner was since not given his due place in the gradation
list, therefore, he was denied promotion and thus on getting the due placement
he is not entitled to arrears of pay.
Nobody is appearing for the Municipal Corporation, respondents have
filed a combined return, in which they placed reliance on the finance department
circular dated 26.04.1974, copy of which is not enclosed by the respondents
along with their return to say that petitioner was not entitled to arrears of salary
on grant of proforma promotion.
Shri Nilesh Kotecha, in his turn, has placed reliance on the judgment of
Supreme Court in State of Kerala and Others Vs. E.K. Bhaskaran Pillai,
(2007) 6 SCC 524, wherein it is held that principle of 'no work no pay' cannot
be accepted as a rule of thumb. Full back wages in certain circumstances may
be justified, particularly when promotion is wrongly denied.
There is a tacit admission of wrongful denial of promotion to the
petitioner. Since that mistake has been corrected by holding a review DPC in
terms of the orders of the High Court passed in Miscellaneous Petition, I am of
the opinion that petitioner is entitled to the arrears of salary and all other
consequential benefits as was directed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court
while deciding M.P. No.2128/1988 vide order dated 01.04.2005 and, thus action
of the respondents in denying the consequential benefits cannot be upheld.
Accordingly, petition is allowed. It is directed that consequential benefits,
if not already paid, be given to the petitioner within three months from the date
Signature Not Verified
SAN
of receipt of certified copy of the order being passed today.
Digitally signed by MOHD TABISH KHAN
Date: 2023.01.25 19:46:51 IST
In above terms, petition is allowed and disposed of.
Certified copy as per rules.
(VIVEK AGARWAL)
JUDGE
Tabish
Signature Not Verified
SAN
Digitally signed by MOHD TABISH KHAN
Date: 2023.01.25 19:46:51 IST
