C B TIWARI Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has called in question the validity of orders dated 14.8.1996 and 4.9.2004 (Annx.P/3 and P/6) respectively, by which though the promotion was granted to the petitioner with retrospective effect after his exoneration in the departmental enquiry from the date the juniors to him were promoted, but the monetary benefit of promotion was denied to him on the principle of no work no pay and by subsequent order, the representation submitted by the petitioner has been rejected. It is contended that the petitioner while was working on the post of Forest Ranger became due for promotion on the post of Assistant Conservator of Forest. However, since a departmental enquiry was pending against him, the recommendations made in respect of the petitioner were kept in the sealed cover. Ultimately, the said departmental enquiry was completed and the petitioner was exonerated as no misconduct was found proved against him. Similar was the situation with one Shri R.L. Medha, who too was working as Forest Ranger, but was superseded because of pending departmental enquiry. After the closure of the departmental enquiry, the recommendations made in respect of promotion of the petitioner by the Departmental Promotion Committee (hereinafter referred to as the DPC for brevity) were looked into. Since the petitioner was found fit for such promotion, the order was issued on 14.8.1996 promoting the petitioner on the post of Assistant Conservator of Forest in the junior pay scale. The seniority was conferred on the petitioner from the date juniors to him were promoted i.e. from 6.9.1995, but the monetary benefit of such promotion was denied to the petitioner on the application of principle of no work no pay.

(2.) The petitioner immediately represented that since he was not responsible for the departmental enquiry or delayed promotion, therefore, he should have been given the benefit of promotion with all the monetary benefits and that in terms of the circular issued by the State Government, the petitioner was entitled to grant of monetary benefit of promotion as well. Such a representation of the petitioner was said to be rejected, therefore, the writ petition was required to be filed.

(3.) Upon issuance of the notice of this writ petition, the respondents have filed their return contending inter alia that there was no question of application of Fundamental Rule 54(2)(4), as it was not a case of removal of petitioner from service and reinstatement under the orders of the Court or by the appellate authority. In fact, the charge sheet was issued to the petitioner and the departmental enquiry was pending when certain vacancies became available to consider the case of eligible persons for promotion on the post of Assistant Conservator of Forest. The petitioner was also to be considered for such promotion, but since the departmental enquiry was pending against him and during pendency of the departmental enquiry he was placed under suspension, the promotion order was not required to be issued in case of the petitioner. Since after the departmental enquiry was completed and it was found that the charges levelled against the petitioner were not proved, he was exonerated, the case of the petitioner was reviewed and by the order of the competent authority, the petitioner was promoted on the post of Assistant Conservator of Forest, which post the petitioner has joined on 22.8.1996 and, therefore, rightly he has been granted the benefit of salary from the date he joined on the promotional post. According to the respondents, no illegality is committed in the matter of grant of such benefit to the petitioner and as such, no relief as claimed in the writ petition can be granted.