H P UPADHYAY Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed challenging the orders dated 23-5-2008, 29-5-2009 and 10-2-2010 Annexures P/10, P/12 and P/16 respectively and relief is claimed to the effect that the respondent be commended to pay the benefits of revised pay scale on promotion of the petitioner on the post of Director, Health Services w.e.f. 2-12-1998 till 31-3-2003 and all the arrears be calculated after proper fixation of pay and the same be paid to the petitioner with interest at the rate of 24% per annum. A further claim is made by the petitioner to revised pension and other retiral dues of the petitioner w.e.f. 1-4-2003 and to pay arrears of the same with interest at the rate of 24% per annum.

(2.) It is contended by the petitioner that he was appointed in the service was granted promotion timely up to the post of Dy. Director. However, he was superseded in the matter of promotion on the post of Joint Director, Health Services, which resulted in further supersession on the post of Director, Health Services. The petitioner was prosecuting his claim before the respondent by making constant applications/representations but till date of his retirement nothing was done. Ultimately, by orders he was given the benefits of promotion, but the monetary claims were denied. It is the case of the petitioner that since he was superseded illegally and ultimately such fact was found correct as was pointed out by the petitioner long back only in the year 2008, petitioner could not have been denied the benefit of monetary claims on account of promotion. It is said that while in service the petitioner suffered the loss in emoluments and he also suffered the loss after retirement when the pensionary claims were settled and is still suffering monetary loss as he is being paid lesser pension than what is otherwise due to him.

(3.) Writ petition was entertained by this Court, notice was issued and in response to the notice, reply/return is filed by the respondent, contending inter alia that the representations made by the petitioner were considered. There was no parity between the case of the petitioner and one Dr. C. M. Sankhla, who came before the M. P. State Administrative Tribunal ventilating his grievance with regard to supersession and the said claim was decided, therefore, the benefit of promotion was given to said Dr. Sankhla with retrospective effect with all the monetary benefits. It is said that the case of Dr. Sankhla is distinguishable on other counts as Dr. Sankhla was superseded because his ACRs were not available in the Departmental Promotion Committee, which met for consideration of the cases for promotion on 28-4-1992. However, since the petitioner has now been promoted, he will be entitled to the notional fixation -of salary of promotional post, but arrears of salary cannot be granted to the petitioner. Thus, it is contended that that there is no parity between the claim of the petitioner and the benefit granted to Dr. Sankhla under the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. It is said that the respondent has passed a proper order which need not be interfered with by this Court.