AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
By this writ petition, the petitioner is claiming the revised pay scale of Rs.6500-200-9100 with effect from 1/1/1996 and benefit of second kramonnati with effect from 17/10/1996. He has also challenged the communication dated 01/02/2014 sent in response to the notice u/S.80 of the C.P.C.
The petitioner''s case is that he was initially appointed as Tracer vide order dated 21/10/1963 and was declared quasi permanent on 4/11/1966. He was promoted as Draftsman on 18/4/1972 and was given the benefit of kramonnati on 7/10/1984 and had retired from service with effect from 31/1/1998 on reaching the age of superannuation. At the time of his retirement, he was getting the salary in the pay scale of
Rs.1440-50-2040. According to the petitioner, he was entitled to the pay scale of Rs.1600-2720 in terms of the circular dated 11th March, 1997 and Rs.6500-200-9100 after the Vth pay scale become effective from 1/1/1996. Since the same was not granted to the petitioner, the petitioner had sent the legal notice dated 28/2/2014 to which the response dated 01/02/2014 was sent informing that he is not eligible for the scale which was claimed.
The respondents have filed the reply taking the stand that the writ petition is highly belated and that the petitioner does not possess the prescribed minimum qualification, therefore, he is not eligible for the grant of requisite scale.
Learned counsel for petitioner submits that when the petitioner was promoted as Draftsman, at that time the rules prescribing the minimum qualification had not come into force, therefore, at the stage of grant of benefit relating to the requisite pay scale, the criteria of minimum eligibility cannot be enforced. He has further submitted that there is no delay in filing the writ petition.
As against this, learned counsel for respondents has submitted that the petitioner had retired in 1998 and for the first time the issue was raised in the year 2013 and then the writ petition has been filed, hence it is highly belated. He further submits that the pay scale claimed by the petitioner has been granted to all others subject to the fulfillment of the minimum educational qualification prescribed in the Rules. Hence, the impugned communication has rightly been issued to the petitioner.
Having heard the learned counsel for parties and on perusal of the record, it is noticed that the writ petition is highly belated and is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and latches. Undisputedly the petitioner had retired from service on reaching the age of superannuation on 31/1/1998. It has been pointed out that for the first time the petitioner had represented before the concerned authority by sending the legal notice dated 28/2/2014, therefore, for about 15 years the petitioner had remained silent. No explanation whatsoever has been furnished by the petitioner for such an inordinate delay.
Even otherwise the petitioner has based his claim on the order dated 11th March, 1997. The said order reflects that in the other departments the benefit of the scale of Rs.1600- 2720 was given to only those Draftsman who fulfill the minimum eligibility condition prescribed for the post. Undisputed the rules namely M.P. Subordinate Agricultural (Non Ministerial) Executive Services Recruitment Rules, 1972 had come in force during the relevant time which prescribes the minimum qualification for the post of Draftsman as higher secondary with Draftsman training. It is pointed out that the Draftsman training is a diploma course. The petitioner does not possess the qualification of the Draftsman training course. Hence, in terms of the order dated 11/3/1997 also the petitioner is ineligible. That apart, the petitioner has also raised the plea of discrimination by submitting that his colleagues A.B. Tokke and K.C. Gupta working as Draftsman in the office of Soil Conservation Officer, Indore and Dhar have been granted the benefit, but this plea has been responded by the respondents in the reply taking the stand that the denial of
benefit to the petitioner is on account of non possessing the requisite educational qualification. Nothing has been pointed out by the learned counsel for petitioner that the other two persons with whom the petitioner is claiming the parity also did not possess the requisite educational qualification. Hence, the plea of discrimination cannot be accepted.
Having regard to the aforesaid, I am of the opinion that the writ petition filed by the petitioner deserves to be dismissed on the ground of delay and latches as also on merit which is accordingly dismissed.