BIHARILAL TAMRAKAR Vs. STATE OF M. P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner had filed an application under section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 before the M.P. State Administrative Tribunal (for short 'the Tribunal'). On abolition of the Tribunal the said OA No. 3294/1990 reached to this Court for adjudication.

(2.) SHORTLY stated, the petitioner's case is that, pursuant to the advertisement issued by the respondents for filling the post of Photographer in the SS Medical College, Rewa (for short Medical College, Rewa) he submitted an application on 24.10.1969 for his appointment on the said post. He was called for interview on 27.10.1969 for the said post of Photographer. After his interview he was declared successful and was appointed on the post of Photographer in Medical College, Rewa vide order dated 13.2.1970 (Annexure A-2). In the said order of appointment to the post of Photographer his pay scale was mentioned to be Rs. 120-220+usual allowances.

(3.) THE petitioner stated that the third respondent Dean Medical College Rewa vide his letters dated 20.2.1981 (Annexure A-6), 22.11.1984 (Annexure A-9), 18.6.1985 (Annexure A-10), 21.6.1988 (Annexure A-11) and 30.7.1988 (Annexure A-12) strongly recommended the petitioner's case for grant of pay scale of Photographer stating therein that the petitioner has been appointed and working on the post of Photographer. It was further pointed out by the Dean Medical College Rewa though two posts of Photo Artists were sanctioned for the Medical College, Rewa but as in the Medical Colleges of Bhopal, Indore, Gwalior, Jabalpur one post of Photographer was sanctioned, the petitioner was given the appointment on the post of Photographer. It was also stated in the aforesaid letters sent to the first and second respondents from time to time by the Dean Medical College, Rewa that the petitioner is performing the work and duties of Photographer but is being paid the lower salary of Photo Artist. The third respondent Dean in his aforesaid letters strongly recommended that the petitoner's post be upgraded as Photographer and he be paid difference of the salary. It was also made clear by the third respondent that since last 20 years the petitioner is doing the work of Photographer and there is no avenue of promotion from the post of Photographer, in the circumstances he should be given the benefit of atleast the post of Photographer having regard to the fact that he was appointed on the post of Photographer and performing the duties of Photographer.