Madhya Pradesh High Court
Suresh Chandra Mishra vs State Of M.P. on 6 January, 2025
Author: Anil Verma
Bench: Anil Verma
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:48
1 WP-6838-2010
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL VERMA
ON THE 6 th OF JANUARY, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 6838 of 2010
SURESH CHANDRA MISHRA
Versus
STATE OF M.P. AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Ms. Smrati Sharma, Advocate for petitioner.
Shri B. M. Patel, Government Advocate for State.
ORDER
With the consent of the parties matter is heard finally.
Petitioner has preferred this petition under Article 226 of Constitution
of India seeking for following reliefs :-
"i) That the respondent may kindly be directed to make
payment of entire due salary to the petitioner along with
12% per annum interest.
ii) Cost of the petition be awarded or any other order or
direction deemed fit in the circumstances of the case be
issued in favour of petitioner
iii) The respondents may kindly be directed to grant all
consequential benefits of absorption w.e.f. 1st of July
1995 including the benefits of seniority, yearly
increment, pay fixation, arrear etc. in the interest of
justice."
Brief facts of the case are that petitioner was appointed as Upper
Division Teacher in private aided institution namely, Shri Hazareshwar
Higher Secondary School, Sheopur Kala which was subsequently taken over
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:48
2 WP-6838-2010
by the State of M.P. w.e.f. 1.7.1995 and on the basis of the Screening
Committee certain staff of institution was absorbed without considering the
case of the petitioner for absorption though he was senior. Aggrieved
persons including the petitioner approached before this Court by filing
certain writ petitions. The said writ petitions were decided by Co-ordinate
Bench of this Court on 30.7.2005 and same was challenged before Division
Bench and Division Bench in the Writ Appeal vide judgment dated
14.5.2008 has issued directions to respondents to consider the case of
petitioner and other teachers for absorption as per recommendation of
Second Screening Committee. Respondent No.2 vide order dated
14.5.2010(Annexure P-2) has granted permission for absorption of petitioner
in the said institution and respondent no.3 also issued order dated
18.6.2010(Annexure P-3) for absorption of petitioner as UDT. Petitioner
submitted his joining report before respondent no.3 and same was accepted.
Thereafter, respondent no.3 sent a letter dated 5.8.2010 to respondent no.2
for seeking guidance in the matter for payment of salary to the petitioner.
Due to the illegal and arbitrary action of authorities, petitioner could not be
absorbed w.e.f. 1.7.1995 while other teachers were absorbed. Therefore,
petitioner is entitled for benefits which has been given to the similarly
situated other teachers as per the recommendation of Screening Committee.
Being aggrieved with the aforesaid, petitioner has preferred this petition.
Counsel for respondents/State opposes the prayer by submitting in
their return that in compliance of order dated 14.5.2008 passed by this Court
the matter was referred to the State Government but on account of non
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:48
3 WP-6838-2010
availability of vacant post, final orders could not be passed but vide order
dated 28.1.2011, respondents have passed final posting orders against vacant
post and it was directed to make payment to the employees who were
absorbed accordingly. The name of petitioner finds place at serial no.5 in the
order, therefore, grievance of petitioner has been settled and no cause of
action survives for further adjudication of the matter. He prays that petition is
liable to be dismissed being rendered infructuous.
Petitioner also filed rejoinder by submitting that during the pendency
of petition, respondents have released salary of petitioner w.e.f. 18.6.2010,
wherein institution was taken over w.e.f. 1.7.1995. The case of petitioner is
squarely covered with the judgment passed by Co-ordinate Bench of this
Court in WP No.6682/2010 passed on 3.4.2024. Other similarly situated
persons have been extended benefit of absorption w.e.f. 1.7.1995. Therefore,
petitioner is also entitled for the same benefits. The inspection report of
SDO, Sheopur States that petitioner was employed in the respondent
institution w.e.f. 1.7.1995 but salary was not paid to the other 60 employees
including the petitioner.
Heard both the parties at length and perused the entire record with due
care.
Admittedly, the institution named as Hazareshwar Higher Secondary
School, Sheopur was taken over by the State Government vide order dated
29.6.1995 w.e.f 01.07.1995 and at the time of taking over of the school there
were in all 191 staff including the teaching staff, out of which, only 131
persons were absorbed. Since the remaining persons were left out, they
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:48
4 WP-6838-2010
preferred an Original Application before an erstwhile State Administrative
Tribunal which after its abolition was later on transferred to this Court and
was registered as W.P No. 7109 of 2003, in which the the report of screening
committee was quashed holding that the screening committee was not duly
constituted. The aforesaid order of the learned Single Judge was challenged
before Division Bench in W.A. No.41 of 2006 and the said writ appeal was
disposed of in the light of W.A. No. 59 of 2006, wherein in para-11 (ii) it
was directed that cases of seven teachers out of 35 teachers who were found
eligible by the second screening committee be considered. Thereafter, after
much persuasion the order of absorption came to be passed. but that too with
a rider that the order would be subject to final out come of R.P. No. 298 of
2009 preferred by the State for reviewing of the order dated 14th of May,
2008 passed in W.A. No. 59 of 2006 but the said review in the year 2016
came to be dismissed.
Other similarly situated employees Ku. Archana Tiwari and Shri Amar
Singh Rawat have filed separate writ petition i.e. WP No.6682/2010, which
has been decided by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated
3.4.2024 and their petition has been allowed with a direction to extend all the
benefits appended to the post to petitioners w.e.f. 1.7.1995.
The order passed by the Division Bench whereby the petitioner was
found to be eligible for absorption conveys a fact that the petitioner at the
time of taking over of the school was eligible and he was wrongly left out by
the first screening committee at the time of scrutinizing of the case of the
petitioner. Though, the order with regard to their absorption was passed
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:48
5 WP-6838-2010
much later, the natural inference would be that the petitioner would be
entitled for all the benefits which accrued to the similarly situated employees
absorbed w.e.f taking over of the institution coupled with the fact that the
respondents have extended the benefit of first time pay scale and treated their
services to be w.e.f 1.7.1995. Thus, this Court finds that the petitioner would
be entitled for all the benefits from the date the institution was taken over by
the State Government i.e. w.e.f 1.7.1995.
Accordingly, petition petition filed by petitioner is hereby allowed and
disposed of with a direction to the respondents to extend all the benefits
appended to the post of the petitioner w.e.f. 1.7.1995 i.e. the date from which
the institution was taken over by State Government.
Let aforesaid exercise be completed within a period of three months
from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
(ANIL VERMA)
JUDGE
