-*»€?;;:- c. ,..<^ ^. •>.- HIGH COURT OF CHHATTiSGARH. BILASPUR MCC (S) NO.S8/2001 Samir Kumar Nag v^ 1 State of M.P. Through Secretary, (Revenue Department), Vailabh Bhav/an, Bhopal 2 Commissioner,; Raipur Division, Raipur 3 Collector, Raipur 4 Shri R.S.Dhakar, Secretary (Revenue Department), Vailabh Bhawan, Bhopal. 5 Stat6 of Chhattisgarh, through the Secretary GAD Raipur, Chhattisgarh APPLiCATION UNDERSECTION 27 OF THE ADMSNISTRATiVE TRiBUNALS ACT, 1985 Aopearance: Mr.S.N. Nande and Mr.B.N. Nande, Counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Arvind Dubey, Panel Lawyer for the State. f24.11.2011) ^L Heard. The petitioner, while working as Naib Tehsildar in the Revenue Department, was selectedand appointed on the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police in the year 1979 through the State Civil Sen/ices Examination. While working on the said post in the Department of Home {Potice}, the petitioner made an 1 ^ IV1CC (S) N0.68/2005 application for his reversion on the post of NaibTehsiidar in the Revenue Department. Accordingly, his services in the Home Department were termlnated and he was repatriated to the post of Naib Tehsildar in the Revenye Department with immediate effect. Subsequently, the petitioner filed a representation on 27.05.1986 for cancellation of the order of terminstion. The State Govemment by order dated 05.07.1985 declined to reinstate the petitioner In services on the post of NaibTehsi!dar in the RevenueDspartment. - Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed T.A.No.85071988 (Samir Kumar Nag vs. State of M.P. and others), which was partly allowed by the Tribunal vide order dated 23.08.1994 quashing the order dated 05.07.1986, During the pendency of the original application, the State Government had already reinstated the petitioner as Naib Tehsildar. While disposing the matter on 23.08.1994, the Tribunal passed the following order in T.A, No.850/88 : "In viev/ of the for^going discussion, the application is partly allowed. Impugned communication (Annexure -K) dated 05,07.1986 is hereby quashed. The State Goyernment has already reinstated him as Naib Tehsildar. The Home Department Police has not paid him one month's saiary in lieu of the notice. That should be paid within three months of the passing of this order. The Revenue Department shall restore the applicant's seniority, status and pay as before, after condoning his temporary .. absence while in the Police Department. If any person junior to him has been promoted to the Higher post, a - review DPC shall be constltuted to conslder hte case for promotion and promote him from a date so as to maintain MCC (Sl N0.68/200! hls seniority and status. On the principle of "no work no pay" he wlll not be entitled to arrears. Hovifever, his pay sha!l be refsxed notional basis and shal! be paid salary from the date he joins the promoted post, if any. The applicant shall aiso be entitled to costs of Rs.750/- from the Revenue Department." o The petitioner thereafter filed this IVICC No.68/05 for compliance of the order dated 23.08.1994 passed by the Tribunal in T.A. No.850/1988. On many occasions, the State took time to file affidavit relating to compliance of the order. On 19.10.2011,a detaiied affidavit was filed and it was stated on oath that the State Government had already reinstated the petitioner as Naib Tehsildar vide order dated 12.11.1987; the Department of Poiice has paid the salary in lieu of notice dated 25.07.2008 (Annexure R/2); a review D.P.C. was convened on 07.12.1999 incompliance ofthe order dated 23.08.1994 and in the said review D.P.C., the petitioner was not found fit for promotion (Annexure R/3); the petitioner was promoted vide order dated 01.10.2008 as Deputy Collector with a direction that the benefits of the promotiona! post shall be given to the petitioner from the date of his joining (Annexure R/4), accordihgly, the petitioner's seniority and status in the Revenue Department has been maintained; the petitioner v/as not paid any arrear on the principle of 'no work no pay'; the cost of the petition has also been paid to the petitioner on 1 6.04.2008 by a Bank Draft (Annexure R/5); the Commissioner, Bilaspur had allowed the leave of the petitioner from 15.11.1999 to 20.11.2005 (totai 273 days) by order dated 01.07.2010 (Annexure R/6); the salary of the aforesaid leave amounting to ^^ MCC (S) N0. Rs.73,862/- had been deposited in the account of the petitioner on 02.11.2010 (Annexure R/7); the salary of the working period during the aforesaid ieave period amounting to Rs.21,634/- has also been deposited in the account of the petitioner (Annexure R/8); the pay 'of the petitioner was revised as per Pay Revision Ruies, 1998 and thereafter, increments from the date of his joining on the post of Tehsiidar i.e. on 01.05.1999 were sanctioned; after refixation of the pay, due arrears amounting to Rs.2,30,140/- was a!so deposited in the acpount ofthe petitioner on 18.11.2010 (Annexure R/9) and; since the petitioner was not in service of the Revenue Department from 23.02.1985 to 12.11.1987 i.e. the date ofjoining in the Department of Revenue, it was decided that the salary of the aforesaid period would not be paid on the principleof 'no work no pay' and it was hetd that the petitioner wouid be entitled for the salary from the date of his joining in the Department of Revenue in accordance with memo dated 08.02.1988 (Annexure R/10). After filing of the sai.d affidavit,on 19.10.2011, the matter was taken up by this Court for further hearing. On that day, after going through the contents of the affidavit, Mr. S.N. Nande submitted that the seniority of the petitioner has not been fixed taking his initial date of appointment as 01.05.1976 and arrears of increments treating the petitioner in serv'ice from 01.05.1976 has not been paid. On the above two points, learned Additional Advocate General, who was representing the State on the said ,.date, prayed for time, which was granted and ultimately, another affidavit dated 09.11.2011 was filed in which it was contended that the seniority of the petitioner was aiready given from the date of his initial appointment i.e.01.05.1976 (document Annexure R-1/B was aiso filed). About increments, treating the MCC (Sl N0.68/2005 vfc' _ .shyna initial date of appointment as 01.05.1976, it has been contended in the affidavit that all increments taking the above date were paid. Mr. Nande argues that according to the copy of the service book (Annexure R/1/C) filed bythe State and also on instructions of the petitioner, increments were not paid to the petitioner for the period commencing from 12.1 1.1987 to 31.12.1995. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the records of the MCC, it appears that t'nere is substantial compliance of the order dated 23.08.1994 passed by the State Administrative Tribunal, and except the point of increments for the period referred to above, almost all the directions contained in the order have been complied. In the above facts and ' circumstances, I deem it appropriate to dispose of this MCC at this stage with liberty to the petitioner to make a representation, on the question of increments alone, to the concerned authorities ofthe State. Ifso advised, the petitioner may file a representation wlthin 3 weeks from today and if such a representation is filed, the concerned authorities shall dispose of the same as ear!y as possible preferably within a period of 4 months from the date of receipt of the representation along with a copy of this order and other documents. With the above observations/directions, this petltion stands finally disposed of. \--~-—--—-_- Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge