SURENDRA KUMAR SAXENA Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) FOR the first time, this matter came before us on 14-10-1987. On that day, two alternative prayers were pressed before us vide LA. Nos. IV and V - for issuance of ad interim writ, in the alternative early hearing of the matter on merits for final disposal. We were then informed that since April, 1985, the petitioner had not been paid salary and indeed, it was admitted, "he had refused salary which was paid to him less but not according to rules". We immediately fixed 20-10-1987 for hearing of the matter on merits. However, at this stage, it may be noted that on an earlier occasion, on 17-6-1987, prayer for interim writ as per LA. No. III was also pressed before the learned Vacation Judge, but the prayer was rejected even at that time taking the view that the dispute between the parties was to be decided on merits.

(2.) UNFORTUNATELY, despite our best efforts, hearing could not be completed on 20-10-1987 and thereafter on various dates, prayers were made for adjournment on behalf of the respondents/state and further hearing was reluctantly postponed from lime to time. However, we heard counsel again on 2-12-1987 and on 16-12-1987 when the matter was further heard, we took the view that the only point to be decided in the case was, whether the petitioner was discharging functions and duties of Filter attendant "regularly appointed" to the post because he claimed salary on that basis. It was submitted on that date by State Counsel Shri Sinha that "regularly appointed" filter Attendant had different functions and duties unlike the petitioner who was a "work charged Filter Attendant. " Counsel took time to place material before us in that regard by filing affidavit etc. within three days. Although the matter had to come before us for further hearing on 8-1-1988, we had to note on 11-1-1988 the statement of shri Sinha that the "affidavit was almost ready and would be filed tomorrow". We adjourned further hearing to 13-1-1988 by our order passed on 11-1-1988. Unfortunately, neither on 13-1-1988 nor on any date thereafter, the proposed "affidavit" came and on behalf of the State, prayer was made on 25-1-1988 to adjourn the hearing further. On 1-2-1988, we concluded the oral hearing which had staggered too long, but allowed counsel to file written arguments before 4-2-1988. On the next date, on the prayer of State counsel, further time was allowed to him to file written arguments on or before 10-2-1988. The case was closed for judgment and indeed only on 11-2-1988, we got on record "arguments" in writing signed by State Counsel Shri sinha.

(3.) NOW, few material facts which are short and simple, but relevant and rather necessary, therefore, to be stated to dispose of the controversy. It is petitioner's case, which is not disputed that on 1-7-1976, his services began on "temporary muster" in public Health Engineering Department, Maintenance Division, Gwalior. Although it is denied in the return that the petitioner was taken on "regular muster" as "pump driver" on and from 2-7-1977, it is still admitted that he continued to serve the department "on daily wages prior to his appointment vide order dated 6-5-1981 (Annexure P/1)". On a plain reading of Annexure P/1, It appears clear that on the recommendation of Departmental Promotion Committee, the petitioner was appointed as "work-charged" employee in the post of "filter Attendant" at the salary of Rs. 90/-in the pay scale of Rs. 90-3-120-4-140-5-170 on temporary basis until further orders and on other terms and conditions applicable to work-charged employees.