The State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Ram Sushil Dwivedi - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1046396
CourtMadhya Pradesh High Court
Decided OnMar-06-2013
AppellantThe State of Madhya Pradesh
RespondentRam Sushil Dwivedi
Excerpt:
wa.1165/2”06. 3.2013 wa.1165/2010 06.3.2013 shri rahul jain, dy. advocate general, for appellants. shri v.k.shukla, advocate, for the respondents. heard on i.a.no.12910/2010 an application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. though there is delay of 175 days' in filing this appeal but considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we find it appropriate to condone the aforesaid delay, hence this application is allowed the aforesaid delay is hereby condoned. heard on admission. learned counsel for the appellants submits that: (a) learned single judge while allowing the writ petition has directed the appellants to give senior selection grade with effect form 27.7.1990 to the respondent. according to the recommendation of screening committee senior pay scale was refused mainly on the ground that petitioner had not passed refresher course. (b) learned counsel for the appellants submits that grant of senior selection grade to the petitioner/respondent without passing of refresher cours.was totally unjustified. in this case, the facts are very peculiar. it was a second round of litigation. earlier writ petition filed by respondent w.p.no.2308/2000, was decided in favour of respondent on 10.9.2001 by division bench of this court by which it was found that the respondent was entitled to be absorbed as lecturer in sociology w.e.f.13.1.1981 and all the consequential benefits. wa.1165/2”06. 3.2013 the case of the respondent before the writ court was that he was appointed as lecturer in hindi and had undergone two refresher courses. in the firs.round litigation, the question in respect of absorption of the petitioner as lecturer in sociology with effect from 13.1.1981 was involved and division bench had considered and decided the matter by an order which reads as under: “8. the state has not filed reply. however, shri naman nagrath, learned counsel appearing for the state, made oral submissions and relied upon the reply filed before the tribunal. he contended that the claim of the petitioner is barred by time, therefore, no relief can be extended to the petitioner. we are unable to accept this submission. sequence of events narrated herein above would clearly demonstrate that it was the state, which had been passing orders after orders some time asking the petitioner to be lecturer in sociology and then lecturer in hindi. once he was absorbed as lecturer in sociology by m.p.uchcha shiksha anudan ayog and posted in government gandi post graduate college, balaji mihona (bhind).there could be no reason to absorb him as lecturer in hindi at shaheed kedarnath post graduate degree college, mauganj (rewa).and place him in the dying cadre. this was not proper exercise of power, since he was not qualified in this subject. the case of the petitioner had been under consideration of the state government in one way or the other continuously, therefore, it cannot be said that it is barred by time. he has continuous wa.1165/2”06. 3.2013 cause of action till he was given a status of lecturer in sociology. the order dated march, 30, 1983 ( annexure p/6) is void ab initio and it is well settled that void order need not be challenged.”9. the petitioner had been representing to the government claiming justice. to dismiss the petition on the ground of limitation after it remained pending in the tribunal for 11 year, may cause miscarriage of justice to the petitioner, who had been assigned duty of lecturer right from 1.8.1972. further, it would be absolutely arbitrary to put the petitioner in dying cadre, ask him to teach in the college but pay him less as compared to his counter parties in the college, although discharging similar functions under the same master with same responsibilities.”10. consequently, this writ petition is allowed. the respondents are directed to absorb the petitioner as lecturer in sociology from 13.1.1981 and give him all the consequential benefits.” when the petitioner was denied senior selection grade on the ground that he had not undergone refresher course, he had again filed writ petition for grant of senior selection grade and writ court had considered the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case that till 10.9.2001 there was no dispute in the matter. by the order of the high court in w.p.no.2308/2000 respondent was declared to be absorbed as lecturer in sociology from 13.1.1981 with all the consequential wa.1165/2”06. 3.2013 benefits then there was no question of undergoing refresher cours.by respondent in the subject namely sociology as he had already undergone refresher cours.before passing of the order by high court. considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, writ court found that respondent was entitled for senior selection grade w.e.f.27.7.1990. in the impugned order, we do not find any error as petitioner had already undergone refresher cours.before passing of the order by high court. accordingly petitioner was entitled all the consequential benefits including senior selection grade as had given by board to its employees, before passing of the order by the high court in wp no.2308/2000 . in view of the aforesaid, we do not find any error in the impugned order. it would be appropriate to mention here that writ petitioner ram sushil dwivedi has already died and his wife smt. kunti devi wife of late shri ram shushil dwivedi is representing the case and she will be entitled to get only monetary benefits. considering the facts and circumstances of the case there shall be no orders as to costs. certified copy as per rules. (krishn kumar lahoti) (m.a.siddiqui) judge judge ag wa.1165/2”06. 3.2013
Judgment:

WA.1165/2”

06. 3.2013 WA.1165/2010 06.3.2013 Shri Rahul Jain, Dy.

Advocate General, for appellants.

Shri V.K.Shukla, Advocate, for the respondents.

Heard on I.A.No.12910/2010 an application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal.

Though there is delay of 175 days' in filing this appeal but considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we find it appropriate to condone the aforesaid delay, hence this application is allowed the aforesaid delay is hereby condoned.

Heard on admission.

Learned counsel for the appellants submits that: (A) learned single Judge while allowing the writ petition has directed the appellants to give Senior Selection Grade with effect form 27.7.1990 to the respondent.

According to the recommendation of Screening Committee Senior Pay Scale was refused mainly on the ground that petitioner had not passed Refresher Course.

(B) Learned counsel for the appellants submits that grant of Senior Selection Grade to the petitioner/respondent without passing of Refresher CouRs.was totally unjustified.

In this case, the facts are very peculiar.

It was a second round of litigation.

Earlier writ petition filed by respondent W.P.No.2308/2000, was decided in favour of respondent on 10.9.2001 by Division Bench of this Court by which it was found that the respondent was entitled to be absorbed as lecturer in Sociology w.e.f.13.1.1981 and all the consequential benefits.

WA.1165/2”

06. 3.2013 The case of the respondent before the Writ Court was that he was appointed as Lecturer in Hindi and had undergone two Refresher Courses.

In the fiRs.round litigation, the question in respect of absorption of the petitioner as Lecturer in Sociology with effect from 13.1.1981 was involved and Division Bench had considered and decided the matter by an order which reads as under: “8.

The State has not filed reply.

However, Shri Naman Nagrath, learned counsel appearing for the State, made oral submissions and relied upon the reply filed before the Tribunal.

He contended that the claim of the petitioner is barred by time, therefore, no relief can be extended to the petitioner.

We are unable to accept this submission.

Sequence of events narrated herein above would clearly demonstrate that it was the State, which had been passing orders after orders some time asking the petitioner to be Lecturer in Sociology and then Lecturer in Hindi.

Once he was absorbed as Lecturer in Sociology by M.P.Uchcha Shiksha Anudan Ayog and posted in Government Gandi Post Graduate College, Balaji Mihona (Bhind).there could be no reason to absorb him as Lecturer in Hindi at Shaheed Kedarnath Post Graduate Degree College, Mauganj (Rewa).and place him in the dying cadre.

This was not proper exercise of power, since he was not qualified in this subject.

The case of the petitioner had been under consideration of the State Government in one way or the other continuously, therefore, it cannot be said that it is barred by time.

He has continuous WA.1165/2”

06. 3.2013 cause of action till he was given a status of Lecturer in Sociology.

The order dated March, 30, 1983 ( Annexure P/6) is void ab initio and it is well settled that void order need not be challenged.”

9. The petitioner had been representing to the Government claiming justice.

To dismiss the petition on the ground of limitation after it remained pending in the Tribunal for 11 year, may cause miscarriage of justice to the petitioner, who had been assigned duty of Lecturer right from 1.8.1972.

Further, it would be absolutely arbitrary to put the petitioner in dying cadre, ask him to teach in the college but pay him less as compared to his counter parties in the college, although discharging similar functions under the same master with same responsibilities.”

10. Consequently, this writ petition is allowed.

The respondents are directed to absorb the petitioner as Lecturer in Sociology from 13.1.1981 and give him all the consequential benefits.”

When the petitioner was denied Senior Selection Grade on the ground that he had not undergone refresher Course, he had again filed writ petition for grant of Senior Selection grade and Writ Court had considered the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case that till 10.9.2001 there was no dispute in the matter.

By the order of the High Court in W.P.No.2308/2000 respondent was declared to be absorbed as Lecturer in Sociology from 13.1.1981 with all the consequential WA.1165/2”

06. 3.2013 benefits then there was no question of undergoing refresher couRs.by respondent in the subject namely Sociology as he had already undergone Refresher CouRs.before passing of the order by High Court.

Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, Writ Court found that respondent was entitled for Senior Selection Grade w.e.f.27.7.1990.

In the impugned order, we do not find any error as petitioner had already undergone Refresher CouRs.before passing of the order by High Court.

Accordingly petitioner was entitled all the consequential benefits including Senior Selection Grade as had given by Board to its employees, before passing of the order by the High Court in WP No.2308/2000 .

In view of the aforesaid, we do not find any error in the impugned order.

It would be appropriate to mention here that writ petitioner Ram Sushil Dwivedi has already died and his wife Smt.

Kunti Devi wife of Late Shri Ram Shushil Dwivedi is representing the case and she will be entitled to get only monetary benefits.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case there shall be no orders as to costs.

Certified copy as per rules.

(Krishn Kumar Lahoti) (M.A.Siddiqui) JUDGE JUDGE Ag WA.1165/2”

06. 3.2013