ABID HASSAN Vs. MADHYA PRADESH STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The grievance of the petitioner is that though a Scheme was made by the respondent for grant of higher grade pay scale way back, to those employees who have completed 9 years of service on one post without any promotion, such a benefit was not extended to the petitioner only because of the adverse entry recorded in his confidential report. Further claim of the petitioner is that the direct recruitment process was started on the post of Diploma Trainee, but again the petitioner was not found fit for such appointment in the year 1988-89 because of the adverse entry recorded in his confidential report. Subsequently the petitioner was appointed as Diploma Trainee in the year 1991. When he was communicated the adverse entry in the confidential report he preferred a dispute under Section 31 (3) read with section 61 of the M.P. Industrial Relegations Act (hereinafter referred to as 'Act') before the Labour Court challenging the validity of the said confidential report. The Labour Court considered the claim of the petitioner and passed an order against him rejecting his application. The petitioner preferred an appeal under Section 65 of the Act before the Industrial Court, Rewa, and by order dated 31.07.2002, ultimately the appeal of the petitioner was allowed, the adverse entry recorded in confidential report of the petitioner was expunged.

(2.) Against such an order of the Industrial Court a writ petition was filed by the respondent before this Court being W.P. No. 5493/2002, which ultimately was dismissed on 14.10.2003. After passing of the order in the said writ petition, the petitioner made a representation before the respondent claiming the benefit of higher pay scale as also grant of direct recruitment on the post of Diploma Trainee with retrospective effect intimating the effect of expunging of the adverse remark by the order of the Court. However, since till the date of retirement nothing was done, on the other hand the petitioner was communicated that he has not been found fit for grant of such benefit on account of his ACR, the writ petition is required to be filed. The petitioner has thus claimed the benefit for grant of higher pay scale with admissible interest as also direct recruitment on the post of Diploma Trainee w.e.f. year 1989.

(3.) Contesting the claim made by the petitioner, a return has been filed indicating that the petitioner was considered in due time for grant of benefit. In terms of the Scheme made by the respondent on 04.03.1987, as modified vide order dated 20.09.1988, the claim of the petitioner was considered but he was not found fit. This fact was intimated to him in the year 1989 itself. Later on again it was informed to him in the year 1992. This being so, it is contended that the petitioner would not be entitled to the relief claimed in the writ petition. Again claim of the petitioner was examined after filing of the present writ petition and the said fact was again informed to the competent authority vide memo dated 21.04.2006. The petitioner was not to be selected for appointment on the post of Diploma Trainee Grade-I. When the petitioner was found fit, such benefit was extended to him vide order dated 08.02.1991. Accordingly, it is reiterated by the respondent again and again that the petitioner was not entitled to the relief claimed in the writ petition.