M M QURASHI Vs. STATE AND ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition, the petitioner seeks a direction for payment of arrears of salary consequent upon grant of promotion from due date. The salary for that period has been denied by application of principle of "no work no pay". Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in a departmental enquiry initiated against the petitioner, a final order was passed and a minor penalty of recovery of Rs. 1500/- was imposed upon the petitioner vide order dated 9.3.1979. In the meantime, officers junior to the petitioner were considered for promotion and promoted to the post of Deputy Ranger in the year 1977. Case of the petitioner was belatedly considered for grant of due seniority and promotion from due date. An order was passed on 8.3.1990 (Annexure A-2) by the Conservator of Forest and thereafter on 21.8.1991 (Annexure A-4) by the Chief Conservator of Forest (Administration), Bhopal, by which not only the seniority of the petitioner was restored but he was granted promotion as Deputy Ranger with effect from the due date 16.12.1977 when his juniors were promoted. It is submitted that in the two orders passed on 8.3.1990 and 21.8.1991, though all the benefits have been granted including seniority and notional promotion, illegally, the arrears of pay have been withheld by application of "no work no pay", because the petitioner was willing to assume higher responsibility and it is the respondent who did not promote him because of the pendency of departmental enquiry.

(2.) On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submits that the departmental enquiry was concluded in the year 1979. If the petitioner had a claim that he is entitled to promotion from due date, he ought to have approached the Court well in time. Further, when later on, orders were passed in the year 1990-91 granting him notional seniority and promotion but denying arrears of pay, the petitioner ought to have approached the Court within a reasonable time, but, this Original Application was filed by the petitioner before the Tribunal in the month of January 1996. Therefore, the petitioner's claim is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches.

(3.) In the present case, upon perusal of the order dated 8.3.1990 (Annexure A-2), it is revealed that in the departmental enquiry against the petitioner, a final order was passed by the Disciplinary Authority on 9.3.1979 imposing minor penalty. From petitioner's own representation, it is clear that he was imposed minor penalty of recovery of Rs. 1500/-. Thereafter, the order was passed by the Chief Conservator of Forest on 21.8.1991 granting him promotion from back date along with seniority. The petitioner had already preferred appeal on 3.5.1979, which is clear from memo Annexure A-3 placed on record. There is nothing on record to show that petitioner's appeal was dismissed or allowed.