STATE OF M. P. Vs. RAMESHCHANDRA SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A petty peon got employment in the post of a Lower Division Clerk and is continuing in that post. He was forced to institute a suit in the year 1981 against the State, his employer, to inject the defendant suitably from discontinuing the action it had taken to stop the annual increment which he was entitled in the time scale of pay for the post he held and further to desist from making any recovery from his salary on the ground of excess payment made under mistaken belief of law and fact. Two Courts having decreed the suit, State has appealed.

(2.) WITH great force and vehemence, as is his credo, State Counsel Shri Sinha has unnecessarily placed authorities galore in support of a single and short contention. Indeed, learned counsel is right in contending that the Courts below have taken the view that there was a completed contract of service between the plaintiff and the defendants -State on 30 -7 -1971 and State was bound to honor that contract. This view, taken by both the Courts, is wholly unsustainable in law, according to Shri Sinha. He has drawn my attention to the fact that the plaintiff having taken charge of the post on 3 -5 -1972, the contract of employment must be deemed to have been completed on 3 -5 -1972 and, therefore, the plaintiff was bound by any order passed in the meantime relating to conditions of service appertaining that post. He has drawn my attention to an order dated 9 -3 -1972, passed by the Superintending Engineer, Irrigation Department as also to another order which indeed is a circular dated 28 -8 -1971, addressed to all Heads of Departments by the Special Secretary to Government of Madhya Pradesh, General Administration Department, Bhopal. The main contention, however, is based on the circular dated 28 -8 -1971 which is also the foundation of the defence set up in the written statement.

(3.) HOWEVER , I propose to took first at the documents placed for my consideration to appreciate the legal purport thereof. The letter dated 30 -7 -1971 is an Office Order by the Superintending Engineer, Irrigation Circle, Bhopal, which is a general order making. several appointments as per list appended thereto and it may be noted even at this stage that in the said list, at item No. 22, the name of the plaintiff/respondent does appear. The appointments were made in the scale of pay of Rs. 90 -2.1/2 -100 -EB -4 -140 -EB -5 -170 plus usual allowances sanctioned by the State Government from time to time with effect from the date he/she takes over charge of the post. The second order dated 9 -3 -1972 significantly and importantly reiterates the appointment made as per order dated 30 -7 -1971, but in respect of four persons named therein of whom one was the plaintiff/respondent. It is difficult to overlook the purport of the order and the great relevance which it has to the controversy and the lis. The order totally demolishes and destroys the several contentions which are forcefully pressed by Shri Sinha. There is not a whisper in the order of any of the conditions which are to be found in the circular issued earlier on 28 -8 -1971. I do not understand at all how; therefore, in any view of the matter, in the facts and circumstances of the case, it can at all be held that the plaintiff/respondent must be held bound by the circular letter dated 28 8 -1971. Even when his appointment was reiterated, it was made only in terms of the earlier order passed on 30 -7 -1971 and no condition was attached to his appointment though it was open for the State, the employer, to do so in terms of the circular dated 28 -8 -1971. If I have to read anything, therefore, in Roshanlal's case (supra), I may stress only this much that only when a public servant is inducted into service and acquires the status of a public servant on and from that date, be is bound by the rules framed or any order passed in connection with his conditions of service. Here, in this case, Shri Sinha's own case stated before me is that on 3 -5 -1972, the plaintiff was inducted into service when he had taken charge of the post while the offensive circular which hits the plaintiff. came into being on 28 -8 -1971 and at no stage of time, the conditions of the plaintiff/respondent were settled with respect to that circular, as I have just observed.