KESHAV PURUSHOTTAM NEVASKAR Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS matter is being disposed of by a short order as the facts are mostly admitted and a welcome change has taken place in the fact-situation since the filing of the petition, more than five years ago.

(2.) THE petitioner was put under suspension in the year 1972 pending disciplinary enquiry but before the enquiry was completed the suspension order was revoked in the year 1977. He had several grievances then, which may be summed up under two heads. In the writ petition it was firstly contended that the subsistence allowance to which the petitioner was statutorily entitled had not been paid and a direction be issued from this court to the respondents requiring them to discharge their statutory duties in that behalf. Secondly, the payment to be so made should be of such amount as may be truly relatable to the salary actually and legally due to the petitioner. His increments had been stopped as he was not allowed to cross the efficiency bar without any reasonable cause and this arbitrary action adversely affected the corpus of his salary. It was also petitioner's grievance that in computing the subsistence allowance his salary ought to be re-fixed on the basis of the report of Pandey Pay Commission, which had been given effect from 1. 1. 1972. These grievances had substantial merit and hopefully and happily care is being taken by the respondents themselves to relieve the petitioner against the hardship to which he was put on their account.

(3.) IT is submitted by Mr. Shejwalkar, counsel for the petitioner, that after lapse of nine years a part of the claim for subsistence allowance has been settled and for the remaining part respondents took 13 years to settle the claim but in doing so full payments to which he was entitled on the basis of his grievances aforestated, have not been made. In other words, the increments to which the petitioner was entitled on crossing the efficiency bar have not been reckoned and State had also not refixed petitioner's salary on the basis of Pandey Pay Commission Report. The subsistence allowance was paid on the basis of the salary payable to him in the year 1969 in the pay-scale of Rs. 275-700. A direction is, therefore, still warranted requiring the respondents to make payment of the balance amount to which the petitioner is legitimately entitled on the basis of Pandey Pay Commission Report and removal of efficiency bar. To this submission there is no challenge by Shri Jain, learned Government Advocate, who admits the factual position that orders have since been passed for removal of efficiency. Indeed, a photo-copy of the order is produced by petitioner's counsel during the course of hearing, which is placed on record. It is also admitted that steps have been taken for fixation of petitioner's salary on the basis of Pandey Pay Commission Report.