Madhya Pradesh High Court
The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Bir Pal Yadav Judgement Given By: ... on 27 March, 2014
-1-
WA No.783 / 2008.
27/03/2014.
Shri Rahul Jain, Dy. Advocate General for the Appellants / State.
Smt. Amrit Ruprah, Advocate for the respondent.
Keeping in view the fact that the learned Single Judge decided the matter based on the principle laid down in the case of Daddilal Yadav Vs. State of M.P. and others and subsequently, a Division Bench of this Court in the case of M.P. Urja Vikas Nigam Limited and others Vs. Radra Prasad Mishra in W.A.No.491/2007, has held that the judgment rendered by the learned Single Judge in the case of Daddilal Yadav is no more good law, the delay in filing of the appeal is condoned.
Keeping in view of the fact that various writ appeals identical in nature have been disposed of by this Court, we propose to dispose of the appeal also in identical fashion :-
Learned counsel for the appellant heard on the question of admission.
The writ petition filed by the appellants in the matter of granting minimum pay scale and regularisation has been disposed of by the learned Single Bench based on the judgment delivered in the case of (Daddi Lal Yadav Vs. State of M.P. and others) decided on 3.8.2006 and another judgment in the case of Ramesh Chandra Malakar Vs. State of M.P. and others W.P.No.13579/2006(S). The learned writ Court disposed of writ petition directing the respondents to examine the petitioner's claim in the light of the order passed by this Court in Daddi Lal Yadav (supra) and take a decision. It is an admitted position that now the law laid down by the Single Bench in Daddi Lal Yadav is no more a good law in the light of the case in M.P.Urja Vikas Nigam and the judgment referred in Rakesh and others Vs. -2- State of M.P. and others 2007(1) MPLJ 133 and Daddi Lal Yadav (supra) stands over ruled.
In view of the decision of Division Bench in M.P.Urja Vikas Nigam (supra), therefore, now the claim of petitioner in the matter of grant of minimum pay scale has to be considered in view of the observations made in the case of M.P.Urja Vikas Nigam (supra) and decision is to taken.
In view of aforesaid, this appeal is allowed. The judgment delivered in the case of Daddi Lal Yadav is set aside and it is directed that if in the light of the observations made by the Division Bench in M.P.Urja Vikas Nigam (supra), respondent has any grievance still subsisting he is granted liberty to submit representation to the competent authority and the competent authority in the light of the observations made in M.P.Urja Vikas Nigam (supra) shall take a decision within a period of two months from the date of representation.
With the aforesaid, this writ appeal stands disposed of.
(Rajendra Menon) (Anil Sharma)
Judge Judge
Parouha/-