RAMA SHRIVASTAVA Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition was originally filed by the deceased petitioner Krishna Kumar Shrivastava in the Tribunal on 9 -1 -1989. On abolition of Tribunal this petition has been received in this Court for its adjudication.

(2.) DURING the pendency of this petition original petitioner Krishna Kumar Shrivastava breathed his last on 25 -7 -1993. The present petitioner Smt. Rama Shrivastava is the L. R. and widow of the petitioner. For convenience, hereinafter the word "petitioner" would mean original petitioner.

(3.) THE contention of the learned counsel for petitioner is that petitioner is claiming promotion on the post of Chief Municipal Officer (CMO). The feeder cadre of this post is Revenue Inspector. The petitioner filed writ petition before the Gwalior Bench of this Court and it was registered as M.P. 19/81, Krishna Kumar Shrivastava v. State of M.P. and Ors. and same was disposed of by Division Bench of this Court on 12 -1 -1987. Learned counsel for petitioner invited my attention to para 3 of the decision and submitted that during the pendency of that petition, petitioner was assigned the post of Incharge C.M.O. and therefore it was directed by the Division Bench of this Court to the department for his proper placement in the Gradation List of the cadre of Revenue Inspector. Eventually, the petitioner vide Annexure A2 and A3 dated 28 -12 -1987 and 30 -9 -1988 respectively submitted representation but the same was kept in cold storage and no order was passed by the department on his representation. Thereafter on 9 -2 -1989 vide Annexure A4 petitioner was again asked to discharge duty of as Incharge C.M.O. and he was posted in Municipality Badarwas. After having served for about three years as Incharge CMO, at Badarwas, vide order dated 30 -7 -1987 the petitioner was transferred from Badarwas to Singoli as Incharge CMO. Thereafter all of a sudden, by a stoke of pen, vide order dated 29 -12 -1988 (Ann. P.7) petitioner along with similarly situated other co -employees were directed to be posted on their substantive post of Revenue Inspector. The contention of learned counsel is that the impugned order Annx. A.7 is arbitrary in law since the petitioner served for considerable period on the post of Incharge CMO.