MOHANLAL ARORA Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is directed seeking a relief against the respondents to fix the salary of the petitioner on the post of Stenographer with effect from the month of October 1972, revise his salary accordingly, include the special pay and increments admissible to the said post and to make payment of entire arrears of salary. Since the petitioner has retired on superannuation, it is claimed that the revision of pension be done and all arrears of retiral dues be paid to the petitioner.

(2.) IT is contended that the petitioner was made to work on the post of Stenographer in the High Court Bench at Gwalior. However, because of no fault on the part of the petitioner subsequently he was reverted to the post of Clerk. Later on, even when the petitioner was reverted to the post of Clerk, he was made to work as Stenographer as he was having proficiency in English and Hindi Stenography. For such a proficiency in bilingual, a stenographer is entitled to receive a special allowance, but the said amount was not paid to him. He worked on the said post of Stenographer upto 7.10.1984, but the pay scale and the grade was granted to the petitioner for working on the post of Stenographer only with effect from 8.10.1984. Later on, the petitioner was appointed as Personal Assistant of a Judge in the High Court, but was not granted the benefit. Since the petitioner originally belongs to the establishment of a District and Sessions Judge when his services were repatriated back to his original department, he ultimately sought a voluntary retirement from service with effect from 4.12.1989. The work from the petitioner was taken on the post of Stenographer and Personal Assistant and, therefore, the petitioner would be entitled to payment of salary applicable to the said post. A representation was made by the petitioner in the year 1987. On the representation, the sanction was sought by the District and Sessions Judge Gwalior from the High Court. Since communication in this respect was made available to the petitioner in 1991, categorically indicating that on completion of 45 years of age petitioner would be entitled to grant of pay scale of the post with effect from 8.10.1984 only a notice was given by the petitioner and thereafter this writ petition was required to be filed. This being so, it is contended that the petitioner would be entitled to grant of reliefs as claimed in para 7, which are reproduced as under :-

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