1996 INSC 0686
                                              State of M.P. and Others

                                                           Vs

                                                 Sadashiv Zamindar

                                          Civil Appeal No. 7845 of 1996

                                       (K. Ramaswamy, G.B. Pattanaik JJ)

                                                      18.04.1996

                                                        ORDER

1. Delay condoned.

2. Leave granted.

3. We have heard learned counsel on both sides.

4. This appeal by special leave arises from the order dated 7-5-1993 of the Administrative Tribunal
of Madhya Pradesh made in MA No. 7 of 1992. 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 3-3-1962 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., 21-1-1983. The writ petition was
transferred to the Administrative Tribunal after its reconstitution. Initially, the Tribunal had
dismissed the writ petition by order dated 27-12-1991 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.

5. 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 appellant and in proper perspective, we think that the Tribunal has to go
into the matter afresh. We do not propose to go into the matter nor express any opinion on merits.

6. 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.