1984 (7) TMI 403 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Entitlement to interest on delayed payment of arrears of salary.
2. Consideration for confirmation as a clerk from the date juniors were confirmed.
3. Consideration for promotion to the post of Assistant when juniors were considered.
4. Payment of pending T.A. Bills.

Detailed Analysis:

Entitlement to Interest on Delayed Payment of Arrears of Salary:
The petitioner was entitled to be reinstated and paid arrears of salary following the decision in Civil Writ Petition No. 61 of 1971. Despite presenting himself for duty on May 16, 1974, the petitioner was not permitted to join nor paid the arrears of salary. The Letters Patent Appeal filed on April 25, 1974, did not stay the decision until October 11, 1974. The stay order only applied prospectively, and no arrears of salary were paid until June/July 1981. The court found no valid justification for this delay and awarded interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the delayed payment of arrears of salary, specifying different periods for calculation:
1. From the date the salary became due until October 10, 1974.
2. From May 17, 1980, until the actual payment in June/July 1981.

Consideration for Confirmation as a Clerk:
The Departmental Promotion Committee confirmed the petitioner as a clerk on September 22, 1981. The petitioner claimed he should have been confirmed from the date his juniors were confirmed. However, the court reviewed the records and found no legal ground to challenge the Committee's decision. Thus, the petitioner was not entitled to any relief regarding confirmation.

Consideration for Promotion to the Post of Assistant:
The Departmental Promotion Committee, in its meeting on May 14, 1984, deemed the petitioner unfit for promotion based on the available records. The court, after reviewing the Committee's reports and relevant records, upheld the decision, denying any relief for promotion to the petitioner.

Payment of Pending T.A. Bills:
The petitioner claimed certain T.A. Bills were still unpaid. The Advocate General stated these were under process and assured that necessary payments would be made within one month from the judgment date.

Additional Observations:
The court emphasized the duty of the State and its subordinates to implement court decisions promptly, regardless of pending appeals unless a stay is granted. The court referenced the Supreme Court decision in *Baradakanta Mishra v. Bhimsen Dixit*, highlighting that non-compliance with court decisions could amount to contempt of court. The court directed the State Government to ensure all subordinates are aware of the necessity to implement court decisions expeditiously.

Conclusion:
The writ petition was disposed of with the above directions, and the court appreciated the assistance provided by the amicus curiae. A copy of the judgment was ordered to be forwarded to the Chief Secretary of the State Government for appropriate action.