SADHANA VERMA Vs. STATE OF MP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition is directed against the order dated 2.3.2012 (Annexure P/4), whereby the additional charge given to the petitioner is taken away. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that impugned order is bad in law and said charge is required to be restored because the petitioner is senior to the private respondent herein.

(2.) PER Contra, it is opposed by the other side. Shri Newaskar submits that petitioner's substantive rights are not taken away and, therefore, he has no right to seek benefit of additional charge. He submits that it is within the domain of the respondents to decide about grant of additional charge.

(3.) IN the opinion of this Court, This question is no more res-integra in view of judgment of Supreme Court reported in AIR 1993 SC 2273 [State of Haryana Vs. S.M. Sharma and others]. In Para 11, the Apex Court held as under:-