P S DEO Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) INVOKING the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court the petitioner has called in question the legal propriety of the order dated 28 -12 -2001 passed by the Madhya Pradesh Administrative Tribunal (in short 'the Tribunal) in O.A. No. 269/1993. The essential facts that gave rise to filing of the application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 before the Tribunal are that the petitioner had worked in various posts, namely, Additional Treasury Accountant and Lecturer in M.P. Accounts Training School, Jabalpur and further assisted the Stamp Clerk of District Treasury, Jabalpur. A disciplinary proceeding was initiated against him along with ether officers and eventually he was compulsorily retired on 4 -5 -1986 by way of punishment, the said order was assailed in appeal and the appellate authority on 8 -9 -1989 vide Annexure -P/1 annulled the order of compulsory retirement and directed the period commencing 4 -5 -1986, the date, of compulsory retirement, till the actual date of his superannuation i.e. 1 -2 -1987 would be treated as period spent on leave as admissible and he be paid salary accordingly. The petitioner sought review of the aforesaid order which faced dismissal on 5 -2 -1991. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid action an original application was instituted before the Tribunal wherein prayer was put forth that from the date of compulsory retirement till date of superannuation order passed by the appellate authority should be.; modified and the entire period should be treated as on duty and he be extended -all consequential benefits.

(2.) THE prayer of the petitioner was resisted by the answering respondents contending, inter alia, that the period between 4 -5 -1986 to 1 -2 -1987 had already been regularised and die intervening period would be determined in accordance with the provisions contained in FR -54 but he should not be extended the benefit of promotion as he was out of service. The Tribunal took note of the fact that on earlier occasion when the mailer had traveled to this Court in a writ petition this Court had quashed the order of punishment and directed the appellate authority to reconsider the appeal under Rule 27 of M.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 (in short 'the Rules'). The appellate authority on 8 -9 -1989 accepted the appeal, set aside the order of compulsory retirement with a further direction that the period should be spent on leave as per entitlement of the applicant. Being of this view the Tribunal directed the petitioner be paid salary for the period on the basis of FR -54

(3.) WE have heard Mr. Pranay Verma, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S.K. Yadav, learned Govt. Advocate for the State.