STATE OF MY AND ORS.
v.
SADASHIV ZAMINDAR
APRIL 18, 1996
[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.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 7845 of
1996.
From the Judgment and Order dated 7.5.93 of the Madhya Pradesh
B
c
D
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.
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.
G
The admitted position is that while the respondent was working as Upper H
569
A
B
c
570
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP.1 S.C.R.
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
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.
Lex