£ “ o egg 3?¥§ (J §aos@ne a T r 6gag auoz J u a uO’i \z. §fm0 c3cq$w iqyg cf up . LI ‘41$3!); $3 (12%3. §xQUQ=. ow- : Eu TU auxtg 5auguf °? aq v1 D .r §uuyE mTmga n KaJe ap” 1% ayg L”!- L"! L4. f3 {3'} U R1 w Ha 5£919 TES q4-, q ¢; 3x aqq G .. nq S \nr g u EC 113“ r. :-J & U iv ‘T ‘ 3N wV 1 ‘CI'"LL... 3 3V& 3Hm LL! ‘ w.~d 3w: 1€&l l QNH EV 31 gr ‘I NQVXIH‘S ELL <C “a' mm- u ’lEVl‘EKfl‘Exa .1. : vm T33 eqsu S‘U’Q gr, .r 8131 T"A §égu3‘€uogu& ” C? ~ oyyagsgA Fn 1x z.. W)EI§Q /69 éEpg %aaingxq g3 qnoqg m g 1.. T H § q I S£ w 2 m 4» , '4 £>3L@E}xmhmongar& e 41. yaa s son af: La Va 3hr; agHzach Raw Budk‘mangare, by $ccu§au ’o =— UisDgCg wag. 1mg in theo¢ if‘ of the Chia-f Engineer; PGHsE, Raipur Zone Raigmr 7g “4033.1“r1r' age6 a‘m‘mt 38 y:~:s9 san a£ Shr JqRoNag, by‘ot‘mmacim a UJhCL. ?r @crkim 4. .1 n0 FepvL un'eizm, Leah“ a v Enginew. -- Pradégha Bhop 3; Chi 93' recr P‘lb‘l 3 C Fac M.” Engine$ring vepca rtmanit'Raipxax' Zonee, KwpuL‘a «w _M (gaminiatmtigw g££ice oi the Englnéar vina chief: PHEDWaéhya wwm Empal: i ‘ in the o£2€i¢e 0.15 the‘Chief Engineer, EhHgEe Raipur Zone Raigurg { v of Prak sh Taiau, aged about 4G yea s9 sap. of r 311:1 Ba'lram Naidug> by oa$wgation — U.B.C. we: iing in the ofjice af $uperintgnéting Engineer, EWE. c‘mle Raipux. v.4“ 7E ‘MnTwR Di ICKIV 1. S‘taiie of Madhya Pradesh i / . m ,’ thraugh 5:1“: Eec taxy Gave-riment of Maéhya 13raé€sm E‘ublig VEjeal‘H“ g1r‘eonlr‘c ueparmk, tg, Vallab Bhacr Bhepal. I' x V ‘ 2; Engineerminncmte& Eu‘blic Health wwmwqbHQNw$HQZ «awaumwmmnmmHOZWm. Om.Him £§§Vaf..psuu§%§$l VWEHZHmHEpHHANw H.%HGZ§HM. w‘nuw.” Hwmw. K V Jmawmwm mw §§A§§Wm m], a,“ WW,W,W "MK asm'w \\\‘ m2o wmmmi'ca mmmma WWiwW $W‘snéa a Mohan Shrivastav'a, J. SB: Hon’ble Shri Manind 5.2.2010 Shri Ashish Surana, Shri Ajay Dwive ii, State/ respondents. The controversy rais ' IlaITOW €11C0mpaSS 01'}. aCC‘ ordter dated 5. 1 1. 1996 (An: earlier direction issued promotion in abeyance has have placed on record, am which, the respondents promotion dated 12.5.1993 as also order dated 26.5.1993 and een given to TUDC w.e.f. 19.12.1996. :d in that order that from the date ointment, promoted employees will not allowances on ‘no work no pay basis’, 19.12.1996 shall be reckoned for the purposes ofincrements ard hxation of pay on the present pay— scale. The said order incltdes the name of 8 petitioners in this counsel for the netitioners. Dv. Govt. Advocate for the 3d in this petition has been brought into aunt of subsequent development as the 1exure R—I) was passed to the en'ect that on 19.51993 to keep the order of ; been withdrawn. Now the respondents )ther order dated 30th March, 2007 by have cancelled their earlier order of proforma promotion has l: Further it has been statc 19.12.1996 till date of app be entitled to any pay or though the said date i.e 2007. that they were validly appointed vide earlier order dated 12.5.1993 (Annex. A—5). Subsequent order to < v Petitioners submitted \ anéerm (WE) . petition, who have been bernefited by'this order dated 30th March M m C-78 \\ maairm Hananéatm mmqi$ W20 atesimaaiaaa) mmmiaanéa _ 2/ keep their promotion in a 26.5.1993. However, no il promotion mado on 12.5. dated 5.11. 1996, earlier or It is further conte mistake, passed a &esh 01 petitioners have been gr effect to only from 19.12 which their promotion 0rd also been submitted that been fixed arbitran'ly and v Last contention of allowed. to continue on th( by the Tribunal on 13.9.] Work on the promoted pos of salary of the promoted p Learned counsel 1'01 earlier order of promotion subsequent order dated 1 {{Ias issued .keeping the on on 5. 11. 1996 those orders WWW§WW aimanéeT beyance was passed on 19.5.1993 and egality or irregularity was found in their 1993 and therefore vide another order der dated 19.5.9913 was cancelled. rided that respondents realising thei bder on 30.3.2007 by which though the ed promotion, the same has been given ' 1996 and not fmm the initial date on V er was issued i.e. on 12.5.1993. It has the said cutoff date of 19.12.1996 has 7ithout any basis. the petitioners is that. as they were : post by virtue of interim order passed 993 and they have been continuing to : therefore they are entitled for payment 3st. Finally on 30.3.2097: t1“. of keeping in abeyance were withdrawn. ‘ the respondents submits that when was issued on 12.5.1993, in View of 9.5.19/93 another order dated 26.5. 1993 .. ier of promotion in abeyance. Later on, e decision was taken to grant the r mmnim “qzo ‘1 M amm (WW) ammam mamm ‘ m““%am” K 3/ ' mw#ww mama petitioners pmmotion but mly w.e.f. 19. 12. 1996 Without extEnding the actual benefits of pay m 1996 till the date QfJoining. The facts of the ca e as stated by the pétitionexs and not disputed by the respond ts are that petih'oners were promoteci Vide order dated 12.5.199 . Though their promotion were kept in ' abeyance, but finally the arlier order of keeping the promotion in abeyance were cancelle vide order dated 5.11.1996. Long thereafter vide order dated 30.3.2007, the benefit of promotion has been conferred. In this background, when there is no material on reconi to Show that there was any illegality or irregularity in the order of promotion initially issued n 12.5. 1993, iit is dinicult for this Court to accept that the petition rs, though entitled to be promoted, are entitled for that benent o 1y nom the given date i.e.19.12.1996. Respondents are unable t place before this Court any material to Show as to on what b sis, this particular eutoif date i.e. 9.12.1996 has been fixed I have therefore to hold that once the orders keeping the prom tion in abeyanee have been recalled, petitioners are entitled to e gigen benefit of promotion from the original date they were p meted i.e.V 12.5.1993 and there is no rationabbasis for fixing a C ton'date of 19. l2. 1996. As the petitioners w re continuing on the post by virtue of m;m 1 WW1?WW $Wmv Sinha . status-(1110 grantai by the Ti to payment of salaly in resp‘ have worked on the promc directed to extend the aforeV light of the observation made allowed. Peu'tion is accordingly No order as to cost. ibunal on 13.9.1993, thev axe entitled act of entire period during which they ted post. Respondents axe therefore said benefits to the petitioners in the by this Court. w. ii)i*‘, 7., i i Sdl— Manindra Mohan Shrivastava: Judge