- Court
- Supreme Court of India
- Decided
- 18 April 1996
- Bench
- K. Ramaswamy
- Result
- Appeal allowed.
Headnote
[K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, J.J.j
Se1vice La1v:
Promotion-Upper Division Teacher claiming the stat11s as Lec-tum~I1.eq11est recognised-But decided that he was not entitled to the salmy i11 the higher scale on the p1inciplc of "no work no pay" - Employee filing lvrit petition after his retirenzent clabning arrears-Writ jJetition dis-111issed-Revie1v can1e lo be a//01ved-On appeal, held, T1ibzu1al to go into the nzatter afresh since it had not gone into 111e1its by giving oppo1tunity to the Slate on the question whether the e111ployee lvas entitled to arrears of sala1)'-T1ibunal directed to dispose of the niatter 011nzerits1vithin sir n1onllzs.
Headnote as published in the Digital Supreme Court Reports by the Supreme Court of India. Paragraph references point to the judgment below.
Judgment
Delay condoned.
Leave granted.
We have heard learned counsel on both sides.
This appeal by special leave arises from the order dated May 7, 1993 of the Administrative Tribunal of Madhya Pradesh made in M.A. No. 7/92. The admitted position is that while the respondent was working as Upper Division Teacher, he claimed the status as a Lecturer. That request came to be recognised by proceedings dated March 3, 1962 but was decided therein that he was not entitled to the salary on the principle of "no work, no pay". After his retirement in 1983, after a considerable delay, the respondent had filed a writ petition in the High Court claiming all the arrears for the period from 1962 to the date of the order of notional promotion, viz., January 21, 1983. The writ petition was transferred to the Administrative Tribunal after its re-constitution. Initially, the Tribunal had dismissed the writ petition by order dated ')ecember 27, 1991 on the ground that the claim was belated. Subsequently, the above review petition came to be filed which was allowed on merits. Thus this appeal by special leave. ·
In view of the fact that the claim was not adjudicated on merits in the first instance, it would appear that if the Tribunal found that the earlier order was not correct, then it would have gone into the merits by giving opportunity to the State on the questions whether the respondent was entitled to the arrears, as directed by it on consideration, whether he had discharged the same duties and whether other cases also would be ap-plicable to the respondent. Since these questions were not addressed after hearing the appeal and in proper perspective, we think that the Tribunal has to go in the matter afresh. We do not propose to go into the matter nor express any opinion on merits.
The appeal is accordingly allowed. The order of the Tribunal stands set aside. The Tribunal is directed to dispose of the matter on merits within six months from the date of receipt of this order. No costs.
Case details
Arising from
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 7845 of 1996.
From the Judgment and Order dated 7.5.93 of the Madhya Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Indore in M.A. No. 7 of 1992.
Appearances
G.C. Gupta, Sakesh Kumar, S.K. Agnihotri and Ms. Mridula Aggar-wal for the Appellants.
M.N. Krishnamani, Madhusudan Babu, (P.K. Singh) for Sinha & Das for the Respondent.
Source: Supreme Court of India, Digital Supreme Court Reports, via the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open dataset (CC BY 4.0). Text was extracted from the official PDF and may contain conversion errors. Check the official PDF before relying on it.