Supreme Court of India

STATE OF M.P. AND ORS.versusSADASHIV ZAMINDAR

Citation: 1996 INSC 548
Decided: 18 April 1996
Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Bench: K RAMASWAMY

Holding

The Tribunal must rehear the matter afresh, consider the employee's entitlement to arrears, and afford the State an opportunity to be heard.

Summary

The respondent, an Upper Division Teacher, claimed the status and salary of a Lecturer based on a 1962 recognition, but was denied higher pay on the "no work, no pay" principle. After retiring in 1983, he filed a writ petition for arrears from 1962 to the notional promotion date, which was transferred to the Madhya Pradesh Administrative Tribunal. The Tribunal initially dismissed the claim as belated, but later allowed a review petition on merits without giving the State an opportunity to argue. The Supreme Court held that the Tribunal had not properly adjudicated the merits and must rehear the case, giving the State a chance to be heard. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the Tribunal's order set aside, and the Tribunal directed to decide the matter on its merits within six months.

Issues considered

Whether the Administrative Tribunal erred in dismissing the employee's claim for salary arrears as belated without considering the merits.
Whether the employee is entitled to arrears of salary for the period of notional promotion despite the "no work, no pay" principle.
Whether the Tribunal must provide the State an opportunity to be heard on the questions of entitlement before deciding on merits.

Subjects

promotionsalary arrearsadministrative tribunalno work no paybelated claimappellate reviewspecial leavenotional promotion

Judgment

                         STATE OF MY AND ORS.
                                   v.
                          SADASHIV ZAMINDAR

                                APRIL 18, 1996

             [K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, J.J.j                                  B

        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
                                                                                      c
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.   D
        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.                                E
      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.                                                                   F
        The following Order of the Court was delivered :

        Delay condoned.

        Leave granted.                                                                G
        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 H
                                    569
    570                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP.1 S.C.R.

A   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
B
    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
c   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
D   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
E   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.

    G.N.                                                         Appeal allowed.

Search Indian case law

Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.

Try "promotion"Sign in to search