The Madhya Pradesh High Court recently imposed a fine of Rs 50,000 on the state for taking almost 10 years to search doctor’s ACRs for deciding higher pay scale.
The court noted that the ACRs which have been found this month, could have been found in the year 2017 or before it, but the respondents/Government compelled the petitioner to approach this Court twice. This is how the Government authorities are responsible for filing several cases in the High Court.
Facts of the case
The petitioner has filed the present petition being aggrieved by an order dated 25.3.2017 whereby his representation for grant of higher pay-scale w.e.f. 1.1.1994 has been rejected. As per the contents of the impugned order, the name of the petitioner was considered for a grant of a higher pay scale but the same was kept on hold due to the non-availability of ACRs.
In this petition, notices were issued to the respondents but no reply was filed, therefore, vide order dated 15.6.2023 the CMHO, Ratlam was directed to remain personally present before this Court to explain why the reply has not been filed as yet and the case was adjourned with costs of Rs.5,000/-.
Submissions on behalf of Respondent
Dr. Nanaware, CMHO, Ratlam submitted that now the ACRs of the petitioner are available with the respondents.
Courts Observation
The bench observed, "The respondents took almost 10 years to search the ACRs of the petitioner. They kept this matter pending until this Court directed for personal appearance. This is the second round of litigation. Earlier the petitioner approached this Court by way of petition which was disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner. The representation has been rejected as ACRs were not available. Before deciding the representation serious efforts should have been made to search the missing ACRs. of the petitioner. The ACRs. were available in the Department but without search the representation has been dismissed mechanically, therefore, the petitioner had no option but to file the present petition at the age of 75 years."
The Court moreover noted that when CMHO was directed to appear personally, then only ACRs have been made available. This approach of the Government should be deprecated. It is not only harassment to retired employees, and senior citizens but it is burdening the High with these types of cases. A cost of Rs.50,000/- is imposed on the State Government payable to the petitioner.
Judgment
Accordingly, this petition was allowed. The respondents were directed to consider the case of the petitioner for a grant of higher pay- scale as his ACRs are not available with them and the whole exercise should be completed within 30 days from today.
Case Title: Dr. Naresh Sinha v. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Anr.
For Petitioner: Shri Abhinav Dhanodkar.
For Respondent: Shri Tarun Kushwah
Coram: Shri Justice Vivek Rusia
Citation: Writ petition No. 3296 of 2021
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
