SURYABHAN PATEL Vs. M.P. STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed seeking relief against the respondents to grant the benefit of higher pay scale on completion of 25 years of service to the petitioner with effect from 16.07.2004. It is contended that the respondent M.P. State Electricity Board (herein after referred to as 'MPEB') has formulated a policy for granting the higher pay scale to an employee, who has completed 9/18/25 years of service continuously in one pay scale without any promotion. It is contended that the petitioner was granted the benefit of higher pay scale on completion of requisite years of service. He was due for grant of this benefit on completion of 25 years of service from 16.07.2004. The petitioner submitted an application to this effect on 19.10.2004. However, he was informed that a departmental enquiry is pending against him and, therefore, such a claim of the petitioner cannot be considered till the departmental enquiry is finalized. The said departmental enquiry was concluded on 31.03.2006. The petitioner was exonerated and only a warning was given to him. In view of the aforesaid order passed in the departmental enquiry, the application of the petitioner was referred to the authorities by the respondent No.3 on 07.06.2006. However, despite making repeated representations, such a claim of the petitioner was not granted. The petitioner demanded that in case he has not been found fit for grant of such benefit, the reasons may be intimated to him. Ultimately, by memo dated 04.01.2010 it was informed to the Superintending Engineer, where the petitioner was working, that the information in that respect is already sent and, therefore, the petitioner be informed accordingly. It is contended that since reasons were not informed in appropriate manner, in fact the case of the petitioner was not at all considered in terms of the scheme, therefore, the present writ petition was required to be filed. On the basis of these allegations, the petitioner has claimed the reliefs in the following manner :

(2.) Upon issuance of notices of the writ petition, the respondents have filed the return and have contended that in terms of the scheme, an employee who is facing the departmental enquiry was not entitled to grant of such a benefit of placement in the higher pay scale. A departmental enquiry was initiated against the petitioner for serious charges of submitting false T.A. Bills and Medical Bills. On account of such departmental enquiry, the petitioner was placed under suspension vide order dated 31.03.2001. Subsequently on 30.10.2001, the suspension of the petitioner was revoked. After conclusion of the departmental enquiry in terms of the rules made applicable, final order was passed against the petitioner. However, some of the charges against the petitioner were found partially proved, though the charge of embezzlement was not found proved. Considering the aforesaid, the departmental authority reached to the conclusion that the petitioner would not be paid the amount claimed under the TA Bills and Medical Bills and said files are closed. For the misconduct, which was found proved partially, a warning was given to the petitioner. The period of suspension was regularized as duty period and full salary for the said period was paid to him. This being so, in terms of the order dated 19.07.1990 by which the scheme of grant of higher pay scale was reiterated, the case of the petitioner was considered and because of the departmental enquiry, his claim was not granted. The order subsequently has been issued on 09.11.2009 and the petitioner has been given the benefit of higher pay scale with effect from 01.04.2006.

(3.) By filing a rejoinder, the petitioner has reiterated that when he sought the information as to why his claim is not considered, nothing was intimated to him. It is incorrect to say that proper consideration of the claim of the petitioner was done and he was not found fit for grant of such benefit.