NEETU DUBEY Vs. SAPNA NIGAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) It is submitted by the counsel for the respondents that respondents have completely complied the order dated 09.04.2015 passed by this Court in W.P. No. 3687/2013, whereas it is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that this court by order dated 09.04.2015 passed in W.P. No. 3687/2013 had passed the following directions:-

(2.) It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that this Court while allowing the writ petition filed by the petitioner had specifically observed that the petitioner shall be entitled to get seniority and all other benefits from the date her contemporaries were appointed except arrears of the salary. It is further submitted that by order dated 15.11.2016, all contemporaries of the petitioner have been absorbed in the Adhyapak Cadre, whereas the petitioner has been denied the said benefit, therefore, there is a clear violation of the direction passed by this Court in W.P. No. 3687/2018. It is further submitted that the writ petition filed by the petitioner was allowed on 09.04.2015 and thereafter, the respondents/State filed a review petition before the Court which was dismissed and against the order of the Writ Court as well as the order passed in the review petition, the State of M.P. filed SLP, which was registered as SLP Civil No. 714- 715/2017, which too suffered dismissal by order dated 16.01.2017 and ultimately after loosing all hopes, the respondents granted appointment to the petitioner by order dated 18.08.2017 and just in order to show the superficial compliance of the order dated 09.04.2015, it was mentioned that the seniority of the petitioner shall be counted w.e.f. 08.07.2013. It is further submitted that although the petitioner was initially denied her justified claim but her petition was allowed by order dated 09.04.2015, thereafter although the State had filed a review petition as well as SLP but in none of those proceedings, stay was granted in favour of the respondents and in spite of that, under the mistaken belief or deliberately, they did not comply the order dated 09.04.2015.

(3.) Per contra, it is submitted by the counsel for the respondents that for absorption in the Adhayapak Cadre, candidate must have the minimum qualification of rendering the actual services for three years. Since the petitioner was given appointment on 18.08.2017 and as she has not rendered actual services of three years, therefore, at present, she could not be absorbed in the Adhyapak Cadre, thus, it cannot be said that by not absorbing the petitioner in the cadre of Adhyapak, respondents have committed any contempt of the Court.