Madhya Pradesh High Court
The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Kamal Singh Manjhi on 12 March, 2018
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
1
W.A. No.171/2018
(State of M.P. and others Vs. Kamal Singh Manjhi)
Gwalior, dated: 12.03.2018
Shri Yogesh Chaturvedi, learned Government Advocate
for the appellants/State.
Shri Gaurav Mishra, learned counsel for the
respondent.
There is a delay of 110 days in filing this Writ Appeal, condonation whereof is being sought vide I.A. No.741/2018. Though opposed by the respondent; however, taking into consideration the reasons given in paragraphs 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the application, we are satisfied that the appellants were prevented by sufficient cause from filing the Writ Appeal within the period of limitation. Consequently, delay of 110 days in filing the Writ Appeal is condoned. I.A. No.741/2018 stands disposed of.
The appellant vide this appeal Section 2(1) of Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nayalaya (Khand Nyayapeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005, takes exception to the order dated 20.07.2017 passed in WP(s) No.27/2013.
The Writ Petition was directed against the order dated 30.07.2012 whereby the services of the respondent were dispensed with. Case of the petitioner was that having been appointed a Menial Staff required for conduction of Post Graduate Diploma in Public Health Management Course (for brevity "the Course") and on the basis of recommendation of the selection committee, vide order dated 20.12.2011 for a period upto 31.03.2012 and the said period having been extended by order dated 03.04.2012 till 31.03.2013 it was beyond the competence of the respondents (appellants herein) to have terminated his services prior to completion of said period without there being any allegation against the petitioner of misconduct. The claim of the petitioner was THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH 2 W.A. No.171/2018 (State of M.P. and others Vs. Kamal Singh Manjhi) resisted by the respondents (present appellants) on the ground that since the appointment of the petitioner was as a Menial for conduction of the Course and since the Course was discontinued for the academic year 2012-13 by the Consultant, Health Management (SIHMC) M.P. vide letter dated 25.07.2012, the services of the petitioner, who was appointed for the conduction of said Course were no more required and therefore, were dispensed with vide impugned order dated 30.07.2012. Evidently, the order dated 03.04.2012 whereby period of services was extended till 31.03.2013 there was no mention that the same is subject to conduction of Course, nor was there any indication in the order that in case if the Course is not conducted the services would be liable to be terminated. The extension order is extracted below for ready reference:
dk;Z o`f)&vkns'k Jh dey flag iq= Jh dMksjs flag dks laLFkku ds i= Øekad@laLFkku@LFkk- @ihthMhih,p,e@2011@4031 Xokfy;j fnuakd 20-12-2011 ds }kjk ftyk/kh'k }kjk fu/kkZfjr nSfud osru nj ij lafonk vk/kkj ij vdq'ky Jfed ds in ij inHkkj xzg.k djus ds fnukad ls 31 ekpZ 2012 rd ds fy;s dk;Z gsrq vknsf'kr fd;k x;k FkkA lapkyuky; LokLF; lsok;sa e-iz- Hkksiky ds vkns'k Øekad@,uvkj,p,e@2010@11009 Hkksiky] fnukad 15-11-2010 ds rkjrE; esa Jh dey flag iq= Jh dMksjs flag dks ftyk/kh'k }kjk fu/kkZfjr nSfud osru nj ij lafonk vk/kkj ij vdq'ky Jfed ds in ij fnukad 03-04-2012 ls 31-03-2013 rd dk;Z o`f) iznku dh tkrh gSA fu/kkZfjr 'krsZa iwoZ dh rjg ;Fkkor jgsaxhA ¼Mk0 fuf/k O;kl½ lapkyd] jkT; LokLF; izca/ku ,oa lapkj LkaLFkku] XOkkfy;j Øekad@laLFkku@LFkk-@ihthMhih,p,e@2012@841&45 Xokfy;j-- fnukad 3&4&12 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH 3 W.A. No.171/2018 (State of M.P. and others Vs. Kamal Singh Manjhi) Learned Single Judge taking into consideration these facts and relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shrilekha Vidyarthi Vs. State of U.P. and others [(1991)1 SCC 212] set aside the impugned order dated 30.07.2012 and held the petitioner is entitled to work up to 31.03.2013 with all consequential benefits upto said date. However, the learned Single Judge declined the relief sought by the petitioner for further continuation in service.
The impugned order when tested on the anvil of the fact that the services of the petitioner were extended upto the period 31.03.2013 with no stipulation in the extension order that the same is subject to conduction of the Course or that in case the Course is not conducted the services are likely to be terminated earlier, we find no good ground to cause any indulgence with the order passed by the learned Single Judge.
Consequently, appeal fails and is dismissed. No costs.
(Sanjay Yadav) (Ashok Kumar Joshi)
Judge Judge
pd
Digitally signed by
PAWAN DHARKAR
Date: 2018.03.15
11:41:46 -07'00'