B K CHOURASIYA Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE grievance of the petitioner is that by order dated 30.3.2012, the period of absence of the petitioner with effect from 4.1.2005 to 16.4.2005 and 18.4.2005 to 21.4.2005 has been regularised as leave without pay. It is further contended that by order dated 3.10.2011, a charge sheet is issued to the petitioner by the respondent No.3 under Rule 14 of the M.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules of 1966 for brevity), whereas, the petitioner was holding a gazetted post and the power to punish the petitioner with a major penalty was not vested in the respondent No.3. The other reliefs are claimed by the petitioner for payment of the salary of the period for which the leave is sanctioned without pay with interest @ 18% per annum and to release the increments of pay of the petitioner, which have been withheld and the grant of benefit of Revision of Pay Rules, 2009. The petitioner has further claimed the relief to the effect that his entire retrial dues be fixed, the pension be properly fixed and all retrial dues including pension, gratuity, General Provident Fund, group insurance, family benefits, leave encashment and all other benefits be paid to him with the interest @ 18% per annum. The contention is that now the petitioner is superannuated, therefore, all such reliefs are claimed in this writ petition.

(2.) THE contention raised by the petitioner is that he was working as Executive Engineer, at the relevant time and has retired from Mandsour on 31.10.2011. Since the petitioner was required to proceed on leave, he made the application for grant of leave for looking his ailing wife and to get her treated. The leave application of the petitioner was forwarded, but the same was not decided expeditiously, therefore, the petitioner was required to approach this Court Bench at Indore, by filing a Writ Petition No.63/2011 (S). The said writ petition was disposed of with a direction to decide the leave application of the petitioner appropriately. Instead of considering the application of the petitioner in appropriate manner, certain period of leave of the petitioner was treated as leave without pay and the orders in this respect were issued on 14.3.2012. According to the petitioner, since the leave was available in his account, the order was not required to be passed in such a manner. It is contended that only because the order of the writ Court was not being complied with, a legal notice was issued and this being the prejudices, the action in this respect was not proper. Not only the salary of the leave period is denied, since appropriate action was not taken for release of increments, the petitioner has again suffered the loss. In the meantime, a charge sheet was issued by the respondent No.3 treating himself to be the disciplinary authority for a detailed enquiry as prescribed under Rule 14 of the Rules of 1966. It is contended that such a power was not vested in the respondent No.3 and, therefore, the orders impugned in all sence are bad in law and are liable to be quashed. The petitioner has claimed the reliefs aforesaid on the basis of the aforesaid pleading.

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