Rakesh Mishra vs The State of Madhya Pradesh

Inspite of the directions issued by this Court and the opportunities granted to the respondents on 14.07.2014 as also on 05.08.2014, they have not responded and have not filed any reply or affidavit.

Appellant has filed this appeal under Section 2(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 calling in question the tenability of an order dated 23.06.2014 passed in W.P . No. 8730/2014 by which the learned writ Court has dismissed the writ petition.

Facts available on record go to show that appellant was appointed as Steno Typist in the Directorate of Handlooms. His services were taken on deputation to the Department of Urban Administration and Welfare and by order dated 20.02.2003 he was posted at Nagar Palika Parishad, Badwani against the post of Revenue Inspector. Thereafter by order dated 20.05.2003 passed by the State Government his services were directed to be absorbed in Nagar Palika Parishad. While so working, he was absorbed in the service of Nagar Palika Parishad as per resolution passed by the President-in-Council after due approval. This order was later on undone by order dated 21.04.2009, which was challenged by appellant in W.P . No.4686/2009(S). By order dated 29.10.2009 in W.P . No. 4686/2009(S), the order dated 21.4.2009 was set aside and the respondent authorities were directed to conduct a full fledged enquiry, as required by the Discipline and Appeal Rules of 1966 and thereafter to pass fresh orders in accordance with law.

It is therefore clear that after 6 years of absorption, the order of absorption of the appellant has been cancelled saying that the absorption was not legally done. Appellant challenged the aforesaid order in W.P .No. 4686/2009(S) and by an order dated 29.10.2009, a Bench of this Court set aside the order dated 21.4.2009 observing that the respondent authorities before passing of the order of cancellation of absorption should have conducted a full fledged enquiry against the appellant in accordance with the procedure prescribed by the Rules of 1966 and came to the conclusion that once the appellant is absorbed, the action can be taken only after a full fledged enquiry is held and the writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the respondents to take action only after conducting a full fledged departmental enquiry into the matter. Except for making proposal for conducting the departmental enquiry, nothing was done and after the order passed by this Court on 29.10.2009, no enquiry was conducted. As the matter was kept pending for more than 5 years thereafter, appellant sought for inclusion of his name in the gradation list of Revenue Inspectors and for considering his case for further promotion on the ground that his juniors have been promoted. When this was not done, the writ petition in question was filed and the learned writ Court rejected the same only on the ground that appellant is not entitled for any relief, however, on going through the impugned order, we find that no reason has been given by the writ Court as to why the name of the appellant cannot be included in the gradation list and no justification was given by the Government for their action.

In view of the above, we are of the considered view that this was not proper, once the writ court in W.P . No.4868/2009(S) on 29.10.2009 had granted liberty to the State Government to conduct a full fledged enquiry, and if for a period of 5 years, no departmental enquiry was conducted and no action was taken, till filing of this writ petition merely because some communication is available dated 13.5.2014, proposing to conduct departmental enquiry was issued, appellant''s claim cannot be denied so long as the appellant''s absorption in the post of Revenue Inspector subsists and it is not canceled. Once the absorption of the appellant was in operation and he was holding the post of Revenue Inspector, his name ought to have been included in the gradation list for all the purposes and all the benefits thereof ought to have been granted to the appellant till his absorption/appointment on the post of Revenue Inspector was not annulled.

That being so, we allow this writ appeal, set aside the order passed by the writ Court dated 23.06.2014 and the respondents are directed to include the appellant''s name in the gradation list of Revenue Inspectors and all rights and entitlement available to the appellant on the post of Revenue Inspector, be conferred to the appellant.

With the aforesaid, this writ petition is allowed and disposed of.