Madhya Pradesh High Court
Mateen Khan vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 29 November, 2023
Author: Maninder S. Bhatti
Bench: Maninder S. Bhatti
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANINDER S. BHATTI
ON THE 29 th OF NOVEMBER, 2023
WRIT PETITION No. 11018 of 2021
BETWEEN:-
1. MATEEN KHAN S/O ABDUL RASHID KHAN, AGED
ABOUT 60 YEARS, OCCUPATION: ASSISTANT
GRADE III O/O PCCF WORKING PLAN BHOPAL
DISTT. BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. IDRISH AHMED S/O ALLAH NOOR, AGED ABOUT
53 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AG. III PCCF (LAND
MANAGEMNT ) BHOPAL, DISTT. BHOPAL
(MADHYA PRADESH)
3. MILIND PATIL S/O LATE B.B. PATIL, AGED ABOUT
59 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AG. III PCCF (FINANC
AND BUDGET) BHOPAL, DISTT. BHOPAL
(MADHYA PRADESH)
4. GOPAL GOAD S/O MOTIRAM GOAD, AGED ABOUT
58 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AG III PCCF (FINANC
AND BUDGET) BHOPAL, DISTT. BHOPAL
(MADHYA PRADESH)
5. RAM BAU BATHAM S/O LATE SHRI RAJNARAYAN,
AGED ABOUT 557 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AG III
PCCF (FINANC AND BUDGET) BHOPAL, DISTT.
BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
6. NISHIKANT THAKRE S/O D.M. THAKRE, AGED
ABOUT 54 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AG III PCCF
(RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT ) BHOPAL,
DISTT. BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
7. SARGAM VISHWAKARMA S/O LATE SHRI S.K.
VISHWAKARMA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: AG III PCCF (ADMINISTRATION 1)
BHOPAL, DISTT. BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
8. MANJL BAJPAI S/O LATE SHRI S.K. BAJPAI, AGED
ABOUT 55 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AG III PCCF
(ADMINISTRATION 2) BHOPAL, DISTT. BHOPAL
(MADHYA PRADESH)
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MANOJ NAIR
Signing time: 12/1/2023
10:30:41 AM
2
9. SUNIL PAHUJA S/O LATE H.K. PAHUJA, AGED
ABOUT 54 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AG III PCCF
(ADMINISTRATION 2) BHOPAL, DISTT. BHOPAL
(MADHYA PRADESH)
10. S. ZAIGHAM ABBAS S/O LATE SHRI S.B. ABBAS,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AG III
PCCF (WORKING PLAN) BHOPAL, DISTT. BHOPAL
(MADHYA PRADESH)
11. SUDHI NEMA S/O LATE SHRI M.G. NEMA, AGED
ABOUT 51 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AG III PCCF
(ADMINISTRATION 1) BHOPAL, DISTT. BHOPAL
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI PRIYANK KHANDELWAL - ADVOCATE )
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THR.
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF
FOREST VALLABH BHAWAN BHOPAL (M.P.)
(MADHYA PRADESH)
2. STATE OF MP THROUGH ITS PRINCIPAL
SECREATRY DEPARTMENT OF FINACE, GOVT. OF
M.P. VALLABH BHAWAN BHOPAL (M.P.) (MADHYA
PRADESH)
3. PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FOREST
FOREST DEPARTMENT SATPURA BHAWAN
BHOPAL, M.P. (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI MANAS MANI VERMA - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE )
This petition coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that order impugned dated 29.01.2021 (Annexure-P/1) by which, the respondents have sought to recover the benefit of Kramonnati is being assailed.
2. It is contended by the counsel for the petitioner that an identical Signature Not Verified Signed by: MANOJ NAIR Signing time: 12/1/2023 10:30:41 AM 3 issue has already been adjudicated before the Indore Bench of this Court in W.P. No.5185/2017 (Anandilal Bhatewra vs. State of M.P. and Ors.) and also in W.P. No.5737/2018 (Anil Kumar Sharma vs. State of M.P. and Ors.). The Indore Bench of this Court has conclusively decided the issue that the employer cannot insist upon the criteria pertaining to qualifying account examination pass certificate in order to extend the benefit of Kramonatti after completion of 20-30 years of service. Therefore, counsel submits that in the light of the aforesaid decision, the orders impugned deserve to be quashed.
3 . Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent does not dispute that the identical issue has been decided by the Indore Bench of this Court in W.P. No.5185/2017 (Anandilal Bhatewra vs. State of M.P. and Ors.) as well as in W.P. No.5737/2018 (Anil Kumar Sharma vs. State of M.P. and Ors.).
4 . Therefore, taking into consideration the aforesaid, as the issue involved in the petition is already covered by the decision of the Indore Bench of this Court in W.P. No.5185/2017 (Anandilal Bhatewra vs. State of M.P. and Ors.) as well as in W.P. No.5737/2018 (Anil Kumar Sharma vs. State of M.P. and Ors.), the order impugned dated 29.01.2021 (Annexure-P/1) stands quashed.
5 . If any amount has already been recovered on the strength of impugned order dated 29.01.2021 (Annexure-P/1), the same shall be refunded back (if already not refunded) to the petitioner within a period of 90 days from today.
6. With the aforesaid, the petition stands disposed of.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: MANOJ NAIR Signing time: 12/1/2023 10:30:41 AM 4(MANINDER S. BHATTI) JUDGE mn Signature Not Verified Signed by: MANOJ NAIR Signing time: 12/1/2023 10:30:41 AM