LAWS(MPH)-2012-9-17

JAGTENDRA PRASAD Vs. VIVEK SHARMA

Decided On September 05, 2012
JAGTENDRA PRASAD Appellant
V/S
VIVEK SHARMA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition was filed as Original Application No.718/2000 before the M.P. Administrative Tribunal, Bench at Bhopal, claiming the benefit of grant of salary for the period when the petitioner was not permitted to join and to perform the duty with effect from 30.7.1997 to 21.10.1997. It is contended that the petitioner was transferred vide order dated 15.7.1997 from Government Narmada College, Hoshangabad to Government MGM College Itarsi, on administrative reasons. The petitioner was relieved by the College at Hoshangabad on 29.7.1997 and after availing of the joining period, she gave the joining on 11.8.1997 at Itarsi. However, the joining of the petitioner was not accepted contending that there was some modification in the order of posting issued on 15.7.1997. The petitioner thereafter moved the application for permitting the joining at Hoshangabad College as also delivery of the order passed by the Competent Authority. Nothing was done. Ultimately, when the representations were made, a modified order of posting was issued on 16.10.1997 pursuance to which the petitioner gave the joining on 21.10.1997. The salary of the period with effect from 30.7.1997 to 20.10.1997 was not paid to the petitioner despite making repeated representation, therefore, the Original Application was required to be filed.

(2.) THE respondents in their return have contended that the petitioner was aware of the order passed with respect to making change in the posting of the petitioner and in place of Itarsi, the petitioner was posted at Babai, District Hoshangabad. This order though came to the notice of the petitioner was not complied with, therefore, the salary of the said period was not paid to her. Only when the order modifying the posting of the petitioner to Hoshangabad was issued, the joining was given by the petitioner and from the date of joining, the salary has been paid. It is contended that since the petitioner has deliberately not complied with the order she is not entitled to grant of benefit of salary.

(3.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties at length and examined the record.