Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ku. Rubina Nisha vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 13 May, 2019
1
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Writ Petition No.9170/2019
(Ku.Rubina Nisha Vs. The State of M.P. & ors. )
Jabalpur, Dated :13.05.2019
Shri Manoj Chansoriya, learned counsel for the
petitioner.
Shri T.K.Khadka, Panel Lawyer for the
respondent/State.
Heard.
The petitioner is seeking parity in the matter of appointment with respondent No.3 Naresh Kumar Yagnik, in whose case W.P. 2621/2005(s), the Court has passed the following order :-
"Petitioner who was appointed initially as Section Writer in the copying section, has filed this petition claiming regularization in service on the ground that the cases of other similarly situated employees, the State Administrative Tribunal had directed to consider the cases of Section Writer for appointment to the post of L.D.C. in the regular set up against first available vacant post.
It is the case of the petitioner that decision rendered by the Tribunal in O.A. No.389/1993 Ram Bahadur Sharma Vs. State of M.P. and others, decided on 13.05.1999 has been implemented in the cases of some employees and therefore, petitioners are also entitled to similar benefits.
From the record, it is seen that after the order was passed by the Tribunal on 13.05.1999 in the case of Ram Bahadur Sharma (supra), a review application filed by the State Government was rejected and thereafter writ petition being W.P. No.1284/2002, state of M.P. and others Vs. Ram Bahadur Sharma and others was filed, which was dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court on 31.01.2003. In view of this, the matter has attained finality and 2 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Writ Petition No.9170/2019 (Ku.Rubina Nisha Vs. The State of M.P. & ors. ) respondents have granted benefit of the said order to the employees.
It is seen that the case of Ram Bahadur Sharma was decided on the basis of another order dated 02.12.1994, passed by the Tribunal in the case of Suraj Prasad Soni Vs. State of M.P. and others, passed in O.A. No.3742/1993. In view of the fact that the petitioner is also similarly situated, there is no reason why the petitioner should be dealt in a different manner.
Accordingly, this petition is also disposed of with direction to give appointment on regular basis on the post of L.D.C. as per directives issued by the Tribunal in the case of Ram Bahadur Sharma (supra) to the petitioner also. For the present, petition is allowed and disposed of with the aforesaid directions.
Certified copy as per rules.
The petitioner has filed a representation in this regard before the concerned authorities, which is still pending. It is prayed that the authorities may be directed to decide her representation within a reasonable time.
Learned PL for the respondent/State has no objection. In view of the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner, this petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent No.2, Collector Chhindwara to decide the representation of the petitioner in the light of order passed in Naresh Kumar Yagnik (supra), within a period of sixty days from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order passed today. In case the petitioner is similarly situated, same 3 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Writ Petition No.9170/2019 (Ku.Rubina Nisha Vs. The State of M.P. & ors. ) benefit may be extended to him. In case the authorities found that the petitioner is not similarly situated, a speaking order may be passed and communicate the same to the petitioner.
It is made clear that this Court has not passed any opinion on the merits of the case.
With the aforesaid direction, this petition stands finally disposed of.
(Nandita Dubey) Judge jk Digitally signed by JITIN KUMAR CHOURASIA Date: 2019.05.14 10:32:09 +05'30'