Madhya Pradesh High Court
Hajarilal vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 8 July, 2025
Author: Milind Ramesh Phadke
Bench: Milind Ramesh Phadke
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:14038
1 WP-176-2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
ON THE 8 th OF JULY, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 176 of 2020
HAJARILAL
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri S.K. Sharma - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri G K Agarwal - GA appearing on behalf of State.
ORDER
The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is
directed against the order dated 10.08.2019 Annexure P/1, whereby the
petitioner has been held to be not entitled for grant of time bound pay-scale
on account of the petitioner being unauthorizedly absent for the period of
757 days. The petitioner is further aggrieved by the order Annexure P/2
dated 30.10.2019 passed by the Superintendent of Police, Guna, whereby the
benefit of time bound pay-scale has been denied to the petitioner on account
of the petitioner's services after his reinstatement was held to be not in
continuity.
2. Assailing the aforesaid orders, learned counsel for the petitioner had
submitted that against the order of termination passed in D.E., the petitioner
had preferred writ petition before this Court numbered as 5295/2010 which
was dismissed on 11.10.2012 by the learned Single Judge, but in appeal
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:14038
2 WP-176-2020
before the Division Bench in W.A. No.723/2012 dated 18.12.2012 the order
passed by learned Single Judge was set aside and the petitioner was directed
to be reinstated in service with all consequential benefits, but when the said
order was challenged before the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.4931/2015
vide order dated 03.07.2015 the Apex Court modified the said order to the
extent of denying back-wages.
3. Learned counsel further submitted that though the petitioner was
reinstated vide order dated 08.05.2015, but since his salary was not fixed, the
petitioner was again compelled to approach this Court by way of another
W.P. No.5181/2016, wherein while disposing the writ petition vide order
dated 09.07.2018, the respondents were directed to consider the
representation of the petitioner for extending the benefit of time pay-scale.
The representation preferred by the petitioner vide order dated 10.08.2019
(Annexure P/1) was rejected and the petitioner was held to be ineligible for
the time bound pay-scale which was on the ground that the petitioner since
was unauthorizedly absent for 'n' number of times and since his services
were not found to be in continuity, looking to the conduct he is not entitled
for same, which is per se illegal.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner while placing reliance in the
matters of Ram Singh vs State of M.P. and Ors. passed in W.P.
No.4328/2016 dated 23.02.2018 has argued that once delinquent is reinstated
in service, the period for which he was made to remain out of service gets
restored and though he may be denied the back-wages on the principle of no
work no pay, but the continuity of service cannot be denied. Thus, the very
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:14038
3 WP-176-2020
order of Superintendent of Police, denying the benefit of time bound pay-
scale on this ground is per se illegal, therefore, deserves to be quashed.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/State
submitted that as per the policy of 2006 issued by the finance department,
according to condition no.4 therein the period of service when the petitioner
was not on duty/in service would not be counted for his service, therefore,
his claim for grant of time pay-scale has been rightly rejected.
6. Learned counsel for the respondent/State further referring to
Annexure R/1 which are certain promotional rules issued by the department
on 14.08.2012 has argued that since the petitioner was unauthorizedly absent
for 757 days and remained out of the headquarter without permission, as per
the said rule he was not fit for promotion and since the rules pertaining to
promotion is akin to giving time bound pay-scale, therefore, the claim of the
petitioner was rightly rejected. It was, thus, prayed that the present petition
being devoid of the merits, be dismissed.
7. Heard the counsels for the parties and perused the record.
8. So far as the contention raised on behalf of the respondent/State that
since the petitioner's conduct was such which was not in consonance with the
policy for promotion provided under Annexure R/1 dated 14.08.2012,
therefore, the claim for time bound pay-scale was rightly rejected is
concerned, the Division Bench of this Court in W.A. No.723/2012 had
already considered this aspect and after considering had passed the order for
reinstatement of the petitioner in service, thus, this argument has no force,
even otherwise this is not a ground for denying the petitioner the benefit of
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:14038
4 WP-176-2020
time bound pay-scale. The reason assigned in order dated 30.10.2019,
whereby it has been observed by the Superintendent of Police that since the
services of the petitioner after reinstatement cannot be said to be in
continuity, therefore, he is not entitled for grant of time bound pay-scale.
9. In light of the order passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in
the matter of Ram Singh (supra) in which the judgment of the Apex Court in
the matter of Deepali Gundu Surwase vs. Kranti Junior Adhyapak
Mahavidhyalaya (D.Ed.) and Ors. reported in 2013 (10) SCC 324 has been
relied, the aforesaid ground for denying the claim to the petitioner appears to
be perverse as in the said matters it has been held that when a person is
reinstated in service, the period for which he has been made to remained out
of service gets restored and he cannot be denied continuity of service though
he may be denied the back-wages on the principle of no work no pay.
10. Thus, when after reinstatement, the continuity of service cannot be
denied, the very ground ground for denying the claim of the petitioner cannot
be sustained, accordingly, the same is hereby set aside.
11. This Court holds that the petitioner is entitled to get the time bound
pay-scale, therefore, the respondents are directed to grant the aforesaid
benefit to the petitioner and after giving the effect of such benefit notionally,
are directed to refix the pension of the petitioner forthwith.
12. Also heard on I.A. No.6598/2024, which is an application
preferred on behalf of petitioner claiming the pension which has been denied
to him and not a single penny has been paid till date.
13. No reply has been filed on behalf of State to the said application.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:14038
5 WP-176-2020
14. In wake of the fact that this Court had already directed to refix the
pension of the petitioner after giving him the benefit of time bound pay-scale
forthwith, this Court also deems it fit to direct the respondents to pay pension
to the petitioner, if not paid yet, within a period of four weeks from today.
15. With the aforesaid direction, the present petition is hereby allowed
and disposed of.
CC as per rules/directions.
(MILIND RAMESH PHADKE)
JUDGE
Chandni
