Madhya Pradesh High Court
The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Suraj Lal Jungjude on 21 November, 2019
Author: Sujoy Paul
Bench: Sujoy Paul
1 WA-1117-2018
The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
WA-1117-2018
(THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Vs MARUTI RAO MAHALE)
WA/01227/2018, WA/01267/2018, WA/01270/2018, WA/01271/2018, WA/01297/2018,
WA/01440/2018, WA/01455/2018, WA/01730/2018, WA/01826/2018, WA/00179/2019,
WA/00202/2019, WA/00203/2019
11
Jabalpur, Dated : 21-11-2019
Shri J.K.Pillai, learned Govt. Advocate for the appellants /State.
Shri A.K.Tiwari, learned counsel for the respondents in
W.A.Nos.1117/2018, 1826/2018, 203/2019.
Shri S.K.Tiwari, learned counsel for the respondents in W.A.Nos.1227/2018, 1267/2018, 1270/2018.
Shri S.R.Tamrakar, learned counsel for the respondents in W.A.No.1297/2018.
Regard being had to the similitude of the questions involved, on the joint request of the parties, matters are analogously heard.
During the course of the hearing, learned counsel for the parties reached to a consensus. It is agreed that the writ Court has placed reliance on an order passed by the Division Bench in the case of Ramji Prajapati Vs. The State of M.P. (W.A.No.308/2016), but it was not brought to the notice of the learned writ Court that the said order was reviewed/recalled subsequently on 07.08.2018 in Review Petition No.587/2017. It is further agreed that in various cases, parties were at loggerheads on the question of status/class of the employees, whether they belong to Class III or Class IV employees. It is also required to be determined whether Madhya Pradesh Shaskiya Sewak (Adhivarshiki - Aayu) Adhiniyam, 1967 and fundamental rules are applicable to the respondent employees. All these aspects along with relevant aspects need adjudication on merits. Thus, it was jointly agreed that the impugned order of the Writ Court dated 17.04.2018 may be set aside and the matter may be remitted back for adjudication before the writ Court.
Learned counsel for the parties fairly submitted that since the respondents/employees are low paid employees, the writ Court may be 2 WA-1117-2018 requested to hear the writ petitions expeditiously.
Shri J.K.Pillai, learned Government Advocate for the appellants/State submits that return has been filed and pleadings may be treated to be complete before the Writ Court.
Facing with this, learned counsel for the respondents/ employees jointly submit that pleadings may be treated as complete and the writ Court may be requested to hear all the matters finally in motion hearing stage itself.
Shri J.K.Pillai, learned Govt. Advocate for the appellants/ State submits that the matter may be decided by the learned Writ Court in one/two hearings.
In view of the consensus arrived at, the order dated 17.04.2018 impugned in all these writ appeals are set aside. The matters are remitted back to the writ Court with a request to hear and decide the matters expeditiously. As agreed, Registry shall list all the writ petitions before the appropriate Bench on 02.12.2019.
If any employee is still on the rolls of the department, till next date of hearing and subject to order passed by the writ Court, status quo which is prevailing today in relation to the said employee shall be maintained.
Accordingly, the writ appeals are disposed of.
Certified copy as per rules.
(SUJOY PAUL) (SMT. ANJULI PALO)
JUDGE JUDGE
AM
Digitally signed by ANINDYA
SUNDAR MUKHOPADHYAY
Date: 2019.11.22 17:47:19
+05'30'