 Horilal Sharma v. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Deaprtment Of Revenue, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya New

 Horilal Sharma S/o Late Shri Madanlal Sharma, Aged About 66 Years Occupation Retired Naib Tahsildar, Resident Of Club Para Mahasamund, Police Station And Tahsil Mahasamund, Civil And Revenue District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh., District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Deaprtment Of Revenue, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya New Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

2. Collector, Mahasamund, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh. (Cause Title is taken from Case Information System) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner For State : Mr. Sashi Kumar Kushwaha, Advocate : Mr. Rajeev Bharat, Government Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board

01.2025

By way of this petition, the petitioner has sought the following relief(s):- “10.1 That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash letter dated 13.09.2017 (Annexure P-1) and direction may be issued to grant salary to the petitinoer for intervening period i.e. from 29.10.1987 to 11.09.2010 along with 18% per annum, in the interest of justice.

10.2 Any other relief which may be suitable in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be granted.”

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was 2 promoted to the post of Naib Tahsildar from the post of Steno Typist with effect from 29.10.1987 vide order dated 11.09.2010. He would further submit that the petitioner was granted promotion from 29.10.1987 as a junior to the petitioner was promoted to the post of Naib Tahsildar. He would also submit that the petitioner has been given a notional promotion from 29.10.1987 without monetary benefits attached to the post. It is contended that the issue involved in the present case is no more res- integra, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of Kerala vs. E.K. Bhaskaran Pillai, (2007) 6 SCC 524 held that when the administration has wrongly denied promotion or any benefit, in such a situation, the employee should be given full benefit including monetary benefit. The relevant para 4 is reproduced herein-below :-

4. ….. So far as the situation with regard to monetary benefits with retrospective promotion is concerned, that depends upon case to case. There are various facets which have to be considered. Sometimes in a case of departmental enquiry or in criminal case it depends on the authorities to grant full back wages or 50 per cent of back wages looking to the nature of delinquency involved in the matter or in criminal cases where the incumbent has been acquitted by giving benefit of doubt or full acquittal. Sometimes in the matter when the person is superseded and he has challenged the same before Court or Tribunal and he succeeds in that and direction is given for reconsideration of his case from the date persons junior to him were appointed, in that case the Court may grant sometime full benefits with retrospective effect and sometimes it may not. Particularly when the administration has wrongly denied his due then in that case he should be given full benefits including monetary benefit subject to there being any change in law or some other supervening factors….

On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State would oppose. He would submit that the order of promotion in favour of the petitioner was passed on 11.09.2010. He would further submit that the petitioner has not worked during that period; therefore, the monetary benefit was not 3 extended. He would also submit that the instant petition deserves to be dismissed.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on the record.

Admittedly, the petitioner was entitled to get the promotion from

29.10.1987, but he was promoted to the post of Naib Tahsildar vide Order dated 11.09.2010. Respondent No. 1 granted notional promotion to the petitioner from 29.10.1987 without arrears of salary and monetary benefits. The junior to the petitioner was promoted to the said post. The petitioner cannot be allowed to suffer for what was essentially the fault of the respondents. The petitioner would be entitled to get retrospective consequential benefits also.

Respondents No. 1 & 2 are directed to pay the arrears of salary to the petitioner from 29.10.1987 to 11.09.2010 within a maximum period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.