CHHATTAR SINGH RATHORE Vs. STATE OF M P AND OTHERS
LAWS(MPH)-2018-7-130
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Decided on July 23,2018

Chhattar Singh Rathore Appellant
VERSUS
State Of M P And Others Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Sujoy Paul, J. - (1.) The petitioner has prayed for following relief in this petition: "(i) The upgradation of pay which has been disallowed to the petitioner for the period 2001 to 2005 vide order dated (Annexure-P/7) as also service book (Annexure-P/8) be set aside and it be directed to fix the pay of the petitioner after upgradation of pay for that period also. (ii) The petitioner be extended the benefit of pay fixation of salary in accordance with Annexure-P-7 and P-8 including upgradation of pay for the period 2001 to 2005 ignoring the endorsement made by respondent Nos.2 & 3 on the cover page of service book (Annexure-P-8). (iii) In the alternative, the petitioner be granted benefit of fixation of salary vide order dated 27.05.2014 (Annexure-P/9). (iv) The petitioner be granted arrears of salary pursuant to fixation of his pay scale along with all consequential benefit ensuing from fixation of salary. (v) Any other relief to which the petitioner is found entitled be also granted. (vi) Cost of the petition."
(2.) Draped in brevity, the relevant facts are that respondents vide orders dated 18.05.1999 and 22.02.1999 refixed the pay of the petitioner to his detriment and decided to recover the alleged over payments. These orders were called in question before the Tribunal in O.A. No.613/1999 which on abolishment of Tribunal, travelled to this Court and renumbered as W.P. No.13518/2003. This Court by order dated 09.05.2012 set aside both the orders dated 18.05.1999 and 22.02.1999 and directed the respondents to fix the salary of the petitioner in appropriate manner and grant him benefits in accordance with law. In turn, the impugned order dated 17.09.2012 (Annexure-P/7) and impugned note (Annexure-P/8 page 37) were issued. The petitioner's "kramonnati" which was due w.e.f. 02.03.2001 was cancelled and accordingly his pay was refixed.
(3.) Criticizing this order, Shri Sanjay Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the pleadings of the petition including Para 5.11 wherein the petitioner has assailed the order dated 17.09.2012. He submits that no reasons are assigned in the impugned order (Annexure-P/7) as to why the petitioner's entitlement to get the benefit of "kramonnati" from 02.03.2001 was declined.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.