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.