RAGHONANDAN PD SHARMA Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition is filed by the petitioner seeking the relief of a direction to the respondents for fixing of emoluments and salary and other monetary benefits available to the petitioner by fixing his seniority and by grant of notional promotion if he is entitled to during the period and on occasions when persons junior to him were promoted. He also seeks a direction for payment of all the monetary benefits immediately.

(2.) ACCORDING to the petitioner, he was working as a Deputy Jailor, central Jail, Raipur, in the year 1963, from where he was removed from service. Against this removal he preferred an appeal and by orders dated 24th Match 1970 the appeal was allowed and the petitioner was exonerated from the charges levelled against him and he was reinstated and continued in service. As a result of this order he resumed his duties on 31st March 1970 but as he reached the age of superannuation on 7th April 1970 he was retired from Government service. After his retirement, according to the petitioner, in supersession of the orders passed in his appeal on 24th March 1970, further order was passed on 18th December 1973 and by this order it was directed:

(3.) IN the return filed by the State, it is surprising that the stand on the basis of Fundamental Rule 54 has again been taken when in the judgment of the Misc. Petition No. 54 of 1977 this Court had clearly observed "no such adverse order was made under Fundamental Rule 54'' and, there fore, a direction was issued to pay all monetary benefits to the petitioner. It is unfortunate that in spite of this decision by this Court the State has been raising pleas which have been disposed of earlier and the officers of the State have not been able to settle the matters and pay the emoluments which he was entitled to during all these years. The manner in which the matters are being delayed speaks volumes about the efficiency of the administration. From the year 1970 to the year 1984 it is more than twelve years and in the context of these circumstances as have appeared in this case the petitioner apprehends whether still the matters would be settled.