UMASHANKAR SHARMA Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed seeking following reliefs:-

(2.) Short facts of the case are that the petitioner was initially appointed as Agricultural Assistant and in the year 1971 was promoted on the post of Senior Agriculture Development Officer (SADO). Thereafter, his services were transferred to Panchayat Department in the year of 1981 and in the year 1988, his services were repatriated to his parent department and he was again posted as Senior Agriculture Development Officer (SADO). In the meantime, the process of promotion on the post of Assistant Director Agriculture was initiated but on account of departmental inquiry initiated in the year 1983 against the petitioner, the petitioner's case was kept in a sealed cover. Thereafter, on 13/3/1991 the departmental inquiry against the petitioner culminated in his dismissal from service. Against the aforesaid order of dismissal dtd. 13/3/1991, the petitioner preferred an original application before the earstwhile SAT, which was registered as O.A.No.3131/1991, which ultimately after demolition of SAT was transferred to this Court and was registered as W.P.No.2639/2003 and was allowed by vide order dtd. 22/11/2005, whereby his order of termination was quashed and the matter was remanded back to the District Inquiry Officer to hold an inquiry against the petitioner in accordance with law after following the procedure laid down under Rule 14 of the M.P. Civil Services (Classification Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 and providing opportunity of hearing. It was further directed that the enquiry shall be completed within a period of six weeks from the date of communication of the order, but the said enquiry never commenced after remand, therefore, on 23/4/2010, the District Inquiry Officer gave the opinion to the Commissioner, Bhopal Division Bhopal to close the departmental inquiry because of unnecessary pending of case for years. In pursuance to the aforesaid opinion of the District Enquiry Officer, State Government vide order dtd. 27/8/2013 dropped the enquiry.

(3.) Prior to dropping of the enquiry in the year 2001, the petitioner attained the age of superannuation, therefore, after dropping of the enquiry there was no question of his reinstatement in service. But in wake of dropping of enquiry, the petitioner though was entitled for reinstatement but could not be reinstated due to his superannuation, but was entitled for extension of the actual monetary benefits but the same were also denied on the principle of "no work no pay" and further was also liable to be promoted as his recommendations were kept in sealed cover to the post of Assistant Director Agriculture but neither of the two benefits were extended to him, i.e. he was not paid the salary from the date of his termination up to the actual date of retirement nor notional benefits were extended to him, on the contrary a PPO was issued on 4/7/2016 and the retiral dues were paid to him. While issuing the PPO certain amount towards gratuity alongwith interest was also deducted instead of giving interest right from the date of his retirement, which was a mistake on the part of the respondents, as the payment of retiral dues to the petitioner was not due to any delay caused by the petitioner, rather the delay was caused in making the payment of the retiral dues by the respondents, which required to be compensated with interest. Aggrieved by the aforesaid act of the respondents, the present petition has been filed.