Higher Pay Scale Of Doctor Put On Hold For 10 Years Due To Missing ACR: MP High Court Imposes Cost Of ₹50k On State For Harassment
|The Madhya Pradesh High Court, Indore has imposed a cost of Rs. 50,000/- on the State Government saying that it harassed retired employees and senior citizens, and also burdened the court.
The Court allowed a Petition against the impugned order of the state, whereby the plea of the Petitioner for a grant of a higher pay scale was rejected. The reason for the rejection of the plea was due to the non-availability of his Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs).
Justice Vivek Rusia observed, “The ACRs which have been found in this month, could have been found in the year 2017 or prior to it, but the respondents/Government compelled the petitioner to approach this Court twice. This is how the Government authorities are responsible for filing of number of cases in the High Court. When CMHO was directed to appear personally, then only ACRs have been made available. This approach of the Government should be deprecated. It is not only harassment to the retired employees, senior citizens but it is burdening the High with these types of cases”.
The Court noted that the ACRs that were now submitted, could have been submitted earlier and such delay on the part of the Government authorities, not only harasses retired employees and senior citizens but also leads to the filing of such cases before the High Courts, thus burdening the Courts.
Advocate Abhinav Dhanodkar appeared for the Petitioner and Government Advocate Tarun Kushwah appeared for the Respondent/State.
The Court said that the Respondents took 10 years to search the ACRs of the Petitioner despite notices being issued, thus forcing the petition to file a second round of litigation at the age of 75 years. The earlier representation of the Petitioner was rejected as Petitioner's ACRs were missing.
“The respondents took almost 10 years to search the ACRs of the petitioner. They kept this matter pending until this Court directed for personal appearance. This is second round of litigation. Earlier the petitioner approached this Court by way of petition which was disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner. The representation has been rejected as ACRs were not available. Before deciding the representation serious efforts should have been made to search the missing ACRs. of the petitioner. The ACRs. were available in the Department but without search the representation has been dismissed mechanically, therefore, the petitioner had no option but to file the present petition at the age of 75 years”, the Court noted.
Accordingly, the Court allowed the petition and directed the respondents to consider the case of the Petitioner within 30 days from the date of the order.
Cause Title: Dr. Naresh Sinha v State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr.