FAQIR CHAND Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted.

(2.) We have heard petitioner in person as well as learned Advocate General for the State of Madhya Pradesh.

(3.) The appellant was a member of the Indian Administrative Service and was assigned the Madhya Pradesh cadre. While he was working as Principal secretary to the State government of Madhya Pradesh he was prematurely retired by issuing a three months' notice dated 27/9/1975. In pursuance of the said notice he was retired on 2/1/1976. He submitted a representation against his premature retirement and by order dated 2/1/1978 the said order of compulsory retirement was cancelled by the State government. Thereafter on 17/1/1978 the State government issued an order appointing the appellant to the ex-cadre post of Financial Commissioner from 24/1/1978 to 28/2/1980 and for the period from 28/2/1980 to 30-7-1982 he served as Officer on Special Duty. He was again posted as Financial Commissioner on 31/7/1982 and he held the said post till he attained the age of superannuation on 31/12/1982. The appellant filed a writ petition in the Madhya Pradesh High court wherein he prayed that the ex-cadre post of Financial Commissioner held by him be declared equivalent to the cadre post of Chief secretary. The said writ petition was transferred to the central Administrative tribunal (hereinafter referred to as "the tribunal") in 1985. The tribunal disposed of the said petition by order dated 5/1/1989 whereby the State government was directed to consider granting to the appellant the relief prayed for. The appeal Filed by the appellant against the said order of the tribunal was allowed by this court by order dated 27/9/1989 directing the tribunal to decide the question of equivalence to the post of Financial Commissioner to that of the Chief secretary. Thereafter the tribunal passed the impugned order dated 26/4/1991 whereby the ex-cadre post of financial Commissioner has been equated to the post of Chief secretary and it was ordered that the appellant be paid the difference in pay and allowances between the post of Financial Commissioner and Chief secretary during the period from 24/1/1978 to 28/2/1980 and 31/7/1982 to 31/12/1982. The said amount has been paid to the appellant. Only surviving grievance of the appellant is with regard to the period from 28/2/1980 to 30/7/1982 when he was holding the post of Officer on Special Duty. The submission of the appellant is that the said post of Officer on Special Duty should be treated at the same level as that of the Financial Commissioner which was held by the appellant prior to 28/2/1980 and subsequent to 30/7/1982.