MAHASINGH (SARDAR) Vs. STATE OF M. P.
LAWS(MPH)-1969-2-22
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Decided on February 21,1969

Mahasingh (Sardar) Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF M. P. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

SHIVDAYAL, J. - (1.) THIS is a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution for quashing the order of the petitioner's reversion and the order changing the date of his promotion and for issuance of a suitable writ and consequential directions.
(2.) IN 1947 the petitioner was appointed a Sub -Overseer in the Public Works Department of the Central Provinces. By order of the Chief Engineer, dated October 16, 1956 (annexure A), he was promoted as Overseer with retrospective effect from April 1, 1952. Then, on November 1, 1956, the new State of Madhya Pradesh came into being. On April 24, 1961, he was appointed a Sub -Divisional Officer (annexure B). On December 10, 1963, he was promoted to the post of an Assistant Engineer temporarily, subject to (1) the concurrence of the Public Service Commission and (2) the condition that in case the promotion was found to be improper on the ground of seniority, he would be reverted. However, prior to this order, a notice dated July 20, 1961 (annexure D), had been served on him to show cause why the date of his promotion be not altered from April 1, 1952 to April 1, 1956. In response to this notice, he made a representation dated August 10, 1961, (annexure E) against the proposed change in the date of his promotion. On September 30, 1961, was published a provisional gradation list (annexure F), in which the "date of commencement of continuous officiation in equated cadre" was shown as "1 -4 -1952". It may be Doted that it was after this that the order dated December 10, 1963 (annexure E) appointing him an Assistant Engineer was made. In the Final gradation list dated June 4, 1965, the date of his promotion was shown as April 1, 1955. By order dated July 29, 1966 (annexure H), he was reverted to his substantive post.
(3.) ON October 1, 1966, he filed this petition. His grievance was that his representation, which he had made in response to the show cause notice, had not been considered and no decision had been taken. He urged that under section 115 of the States Re -organisation Act, his status and date of promotion as prevailing on November 1, 1956, were bound to be acknowledged and the same could not be affected adversely, particularly when no decision had been taken on his representation.;


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