Supreme Court of India
STATE OF M.P. AND ORS. versus SADASHIV ZAMINDAR
- Decided
- 18 April 1996
- Judges listed
- K. RAMASWAMY
- Disposal
- Appeal(s) allowed
Citations
- Official
- [1996] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 569 · 1996 INSC 548
Cited by
We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.
Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.
The Court's text
Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.
Delay condoned. Leave granted. We have heard learned counsel on both sides.
p. 569, margin F
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 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. ·
pp. 569–570, margin G
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 entitled to the arrears, as directed by it on consideration, whether he had discharged the same duties and whether other cases also would be applicable 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 nor express any opinion on merits.
p. 570, margin C
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.
p. 570, margin E