Madhya Pradesh High Court
Jageshwar Prasad Jaishwal vs Secretary The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 12 September, 2012
WRIT PETITION No.1221/2011
12/09/2012
Shri Atul Kumar Rai, learned counsel for the
petitioner.
Shri Vivek Sharma, learned Panel Lawyer,
for respondent/State.
The petitioner was placed under suspension by the order of the competent authority in Madhya Pradesh when he was working in this State, for the reasons of registration of a crime case against him under Section 13(1) of Prevention of Corruption Act as also under Section 420,120B IPC as back as in the year 1994. The investigation was completed and as stated by the respondents in their return, the challan was required to be filed but the sanction to prosecute the petitioner was required to be obtained and since it was not granted the petitioner remained under suspension. Later on the services of the petitioner were allocated to the State of Chhattisgarh on account of reorganization of the State of Madhya Pradesh and constitution of the State of Chhattisgarh. Accordingly the suspension of the petitioner was revoked and after his reinstatement he was relieved from the State of Madhya Pradesh to join the services in the State of Chhattisgarh on 01/11/2007. The petitioner thereafter made a claim that the salary for the period of the suspension be paid to him and the period of suspension be regularized as duty period because it was not his folly of not filing the challan in the aforesaid criminal case expeditiously and therefore this period of suspension of the petitioner was required to be regularized. Such a prayer was rejected vide order dated 13/12/2010, therefore this writ petition is required to be filed. The response given by the respondents is simply that even when the investigation was completed, the petitioner was arrested and bailed out and when he was under suspension, required sanction was asked for prosecution of the petitioner but in absence of such a sanction the petitioner could not be prosecuted and remained under suspension. It is contended that such a period of suspension is to be regularized only after conclusion of the criminal prosecution which is to be launched. Otherwise the suspension of the petitioner is not to be regularized.
Such a plea of the respondents is unsustainable in the eye of law. The petitioner
was only a Constable in the ministerial services class IV and sanction to prosecute the petitioner could have been granted by the appointing authority. If that sanction was not granted by the said authority for such a long period of 11 years, up to the date the petitioner was allocated to the State of Chhattisgarh, the petitioner cannot be held responsible for the same. As on today the petitioner is already allocated to the State of Chhattisgarh and the sanction is required to be granted by the authority of that State. In view of this, saying that period of suspension would be regularized only after the criminal prosecution of the petitioner is unjustified.
Consequently this writ petition is allowed. The order dated 13/12/2010 (Annexure-P-1) is hereby quashed. The respondents are directed to regularize the period of suspension of the petitioner as duty period for all purposes and to make payment of arrears of salary to him within two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order passed today.
The Writ petition is allowed and disposed of with no order as to costs.
(K.K. Trivedi) Judge s/-
WRIT PETITION No.750/201104/09/2012 Shri A.P.Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Yogesh Dhande, learned Deputy Government Advocate for the respondent no.1.
Shri Sanjay Singh, learned counsel for the respondents no.2 & 3.
Heard finally.
Order dictated, signed and dated separately.
(K.K. Trivedi) Judge s/-
WRIT PETITION No.6363/201220/06/2012 Shri Shahidullah Baig, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Ms.Sharda Dubey, learned Panal Lawyer for the respondents-State on advance copy.
Heard on the question of admission and interim relief. Stating that the petitioners is also similarly placed person that of Dharam Pal Chaurasiya and others, who have approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No. 2858/2005 (S), which was disposed of finally vide order dated 23.11.2007 the petitioners is also entitled to be given the benefit of order passed by coordinate bench of this Court at Indore in W.P. No.6773/2006 (S) (Smt. Prerna W/o Shri Promod Koranne Vs. State of M.P. & others) decided on 26.1.2007, the petitioners have prayed for similar directions.
It is seen that the aforesaid writ petition was decided in the following manner:
"17. Consequently these petitions are allowed. The petitioners are entitled to derive the benefit of second Kramonnati according to the terms and conditions mentioned in the circular dated 21/03/1983 19/4/1999, 02/11/2001 and 03/09/2005. Accordingly, these petitions are disposed of with the following directions:
(i) Clause-3 of policy dated 03/09/2005 fixing the cut of date 01/08/2003 to grant the benefit of second Kramonnati to the teachers is arbitrary, discriminatory, hence quashed.
(ii) Teachers of Education Department or Tribal Welfare Department held entitled to get the benefit of Kramonnati under the policy dated 21/03/1983, 19/04/1999 and 02/11/2001, in accordance with the terms and conditions as specified therein.
(iii) In view of the said directions, if the orders of recovery passed by the Government against petitioners are quashed, and if any amount is recovered from them for said reasons be refunded back to them within three months, with interest @ 6% per annum, on failure to comply the said directions within the aforesaid time, the interest @ 9% per annum will be levyable.
(iv) In some of the cases, the benefit of second Kramonnati has not been allowed to the petitioners, however, on due consideration of their cases, the respondents are directed to do the needful in accordance with the policy dated 21/03/1983, 19/04/1999, 02/11/2001 and 03/09/2005 and settled their claim including post retiral and pensionary benefits within the period of 6 months from today and the arrears thereof be released along with permissible amount of interest under the law."
In the cases of various employees, who had retired from service and in whose cases recovery was effected, a Bench of this Court in W.P.No.2595/2004 had passed an order on 24/03/2005 quashing orders of recovery and directing for refund of the amount already recovered keeping in view the order passed by this Court in the case of Smt. Prerna (supra), so also in W.P.(s)No.2595/2004.
When the matter came up for hearing learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that this petition may be disposed of directing the respondents to examine the petitioner's claim in the light of the aforesaid directions issued in the case of of Smt. Prerna Vs. State of M.P. and others (supra).
The aforesaid prayer has not been opposed by learned Government Advocate.
Accordingly this petition is disposed of directing the respondents to examine the claim of petitioner in the light of the order passed by Indore Bench of this Court in case of Smt. Prerna W/o Pramod Vs. State of M.P. and other (supra). In case after examination it is found that the claim of the petitioner is similar, the petitioner be also extended the same benefits within the time fixed in the said order from the date of receipt of copy of this order by the respondents.
If for any reason whatsoever, the State Government finds that the benefit cannot be extended, the authorities are free to record reasons for the same and pass a speaking order.
Certified copy as per rules.
(K.K. Trivedi) Judge s/-
WRIT PETITION No.18614/20118/11/2011 Shri Prashant Chourasia, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri S.S.Bisen, learned Government Advocate for the respondents-State on advance copy.
Heard on the question of admission and interim relief. Stating that the petitioners is also similarly placed person that of Dharam Pal Chaurasiya and others, who have approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No. 2858/2005 (S), which was disposed of finally vide order dated 23.11.2007 the petitioners is also entitled to be given the benefit of order passed by coordinate bench of this Court at Indore in W.P. No.6773/2006 (S) (Smt. Prerna W/o Shri Promod Koranne Vs. State of M.P. & others) decided on 26.1.2007, the petitioners have prayed for similar directions.
It is seen that the aforesaid writ petition was decided in the following manner:
"17. Consequently these petitions are allowed. The petitioners are entitled to derive the benefit of second Kramonnati according to the terms and conditions mentioned in the circular dated 21/03/1983 19/4/1999, 02/11/2001 and 03/09/2005. Accordingly, these petitions are disposed of with the following directions:
(i) Clause-3 of policy dated 03/09/2005 fixing the cut of date 01/08/2003 to grant the benefit of second Kramonnati to the teachers is arbitrary, discriminatory, hence quashed.
(ii) Teachers of Education Department or Tribal Welfare Department held entitled to get the benefit of Kramonnati under the policy dated 21/03/1983, 19/04/1999 and 02/11/2001, in accordance with the terms and conditions as specified therein.
(iii) In view of the said directions, if the orders of recovery passed by the Government against petitioners are quashed, and if any amount is recovered from them for said reasons be refunded back to them within three months, with interest @ 6% per annum, on failure to comply the said directions within the aforesaid time, the interest @ 9% per annum will be levyable.
(iv) In some of the cases, the benefit of second Kramonnati has not been allowed to the petitioners, however, on due consideration of their cases, the respondents are directed to do the needful in accordance with the policy dated 21/03/1983, 19/04/1999, 02/11/2001 and 03/09/2005 and settled their claim including post retiral and pensionary benefits within the period of 6 months from today and the arrears thereof be released along with permissible amount of interest under the law."
In the cases of various employees, who had retired from service and in whose cases recovery was effected, a Bench of this Court in W.P.No.2595/2004 had passed an order on 24/03/2005 quashing orders of recovery and directing for refund of the amount already recovered keeping in view the order passed by this Court in the case of Smt. Prerna (supra), so also in W.P.(s)No.2595/2004.
When the matter came up for hearing learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that this petition may be disposed of directing the respondents to examine the petitioner's claim in the light of the aforesaid directions issued in the case of of Smt. Prerna W/o Shri ... Vs. State of M.P. and others (supra).
The aforesaid prayer has not been opposed by learned Government Advocate.
Accordingly this petition is disposed of directing the respondents to examine the claim of petitioner in the light of the order passed by Indore Bench of this Court in case of Smt. Prerna W/o Pramod Vs. State of M.P. and other (supra). In case after examination it is found that the claim of the petitioner is similar, the petitioner be also extended the same benefits within the time fixed in the said order from the date of receipt of copy of this order by the respondents.
If for any reason whatsoever, the State Government finds that the benefit cannot be extended, the authorities are free to record reasons for the same and pass a speaking order.
Certified copy as per rules.
(K.K. Trivedi) Judge WRIT PETITION No.10865/2011 18/07/2011 Shri Dharmesh Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the petitioners.
Shri B.N. Mishra, learned Government Advocate for the respondents-State on advance copy.
Heard on the question of admission and interim relief. Stating that the petitioners are also similarly placed persons that of Dharam Pal Chaurasiya and others, who have approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No. 2858/2005 (S), which was disposed of finally vide order dated 23.11.2007 the petitioners are also entitled to be given the benefit of order passed by coordinate bench of this Court at Indore in W.P. No.6773/2006 (S) (Smt. Prerna W/o Shri Promod Koranne Vs. State of M.P. & others) decided on 26.1.2007, the petitioners have prayed for similar directions.
It is seen that the aforesaid writ petition was decided in the following manner:
"17. Consequently these petitions are allowed. The petitioners are entitled to derive the benefit of second Kramonnati according to the terms and conditions mentioned in the circular dated 21/03/1983 19/4/1999, 02/11/2001 and 03/09/2005. Accordingly, these petitions are disposed of with the following directions:
(i) Clause-3 of policy dated 03/09/2005 fixing the cut of date 01/08/2003 to grant the benefit of second Kramonnati to the teachers is arbitrary, discriminatory, hence quashed.
(ii) Teachers of Education Department or Tribal Welfare Department held entitled to get the benefit of Kramonnati under the policy dated 21/03/1983, 19/04/1999 and 02/11/2001, in accordance with the terms and conditions as specified therein.
(iii) In view of the said directions, if the orders of recovery passed by the Government against petitioners are quashed, and if any amount is recovered from them for said reasons be refunded back to them within three months, with interest @ 6% per annum, on failure to comply the said directions within the aforesaid time, the interest @ 9% per annum will be levyable.
(iv) In some of the cases, the benefit of second Kramonnati has not been allowed to the petitioners, however, on due consideration of their cases, the respondents are directed to do the needful in accordance with the policy dated 21/03/1983, 19/04/1999, 02/11/2001 and 03/09/2005 and settled their claim including post retiral and pensionary benefits within the period of 6 months from today and the arrears thereof be released along with permissible amount of interest under the law."
When the matter came up for hearing learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that this petition may be disposed of directing the respondents to examine the petitioner claim in the light of the aforesaid directions issued in the case of of Smt. Prerna W/o Shri ... Vs. State of M.P. and others (supra).
The aforesaid prayer has not been opposed by learned Government Advocate.
Accordingly this petition is disposed of directing the respondents to examine the claim of petitioners in the light of the order passed by Indore Bench of this Court in case of Smt. Prerna W/o Pramod Vs. State of M.P. and other (supra). In case after examination it is found that the claim of the petitioners is similar, the petitioners be also extended the same benefits within the time fixed in the said order from the date of receipt of copy of this order by the respondents.
Certified copy as per rules.
(K.K. Trivedi) Judge Skc