Haridutt Vaidhya vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 19 January, 2015

[Cites 2, Cited by 1]

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Haridutt Vaidhya vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 19 January, 2015

        <font size="4">
    <div style="width: 600px; background-color: white;  height: 500px; margin: 0px auto; word-wrap: break-word;" id="ggg" onkeypress="return  nb(event)" onmouseup="checkStat()" contenteditable="true">
<p style="margin-left: -1.5in; line-height: 150%; page-break-before: always" align="CENTER">
<span style="text-decoration: none">                           </span><font face="Bookman, serif"><font style="font-size: 13pt" size="3"><u><b>Writ
Petition No.714/2014</b></u></font></font><font face="Bookman, serif"><font style="font-size: 13pt" size="3"><span style="text-decoration: none"><b>
   </b></span></font></font>
</p>
<p style="margin-left: -1.66in; line-height: 150%" align="LEFT"><span style="text-decoration: none">
     <font face="Bookman, serif"><font style="font-size: 13pt" size="3"><b>1</b></font></font></span><font face="Bookman, serif"><font size="3"><span style="text-decoration: none"><b>9/01/2015</b></span></font></font><font face="Bookman, serif"><font style="font-size: 13pt" size="3"><span style="text-decoration: none"><b>	</b></span></font></font></p>
<p class="ww-body-text-2-western" style="margin-left: 0.01in; line-height: 150%">
 <font face="Bookman, serif"><font style="font-size: 13pt" size="3"><span style="font-weight: normal">	Shri
Vaibhav Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner.</span></font></font></p>
<p class="ww-body-text-2-western" style="margin-left: 0.01in; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%">
<font face="Bookman, serif"><font style="font-size: 13pt" size="3">	Shri
Santosh Yadav, learned Panel Lawyer for respondents/State, on advance

notice. Heard on the question of admission. The petitioner has filed this petition claiming benefit of the second krammonnati as per the circular of the State Government dated 19.4.1999. In view of the circular of the State Government dated 3.9.2005, as interpreted by this Court in the decision rendered in the case of Smt. Prerna vs. State of M.P. & others, and the order passed by the Chhatisgarh High Court in the case of Om Prakash Sharma vs. State of Chhatisgarh & others 2009(2) MPHT, 66. This Court Writ Petition No.6773/2006 (Smt. Prerna vs. State of MP & others) has been decided on 26.4.2007 in the following terms :- %u201C17. Consequently, these petitions are allowed. The petitioners are entitled to derive the benefit of second Krammonnati according to the terms and conditions mentioned in the circular dated 21.3.1983, 19.4.1999, 2.11.2001 and 3.9.2005. Accordingly, these petitions are disposed of with the following directions :- i) Clause-3 of the policy dated 3.9.2005 fixing the cut off date 1.8.2003 to grant the benefit of second Krammonnati to the teachers is arbitrary, discriminatory, hence quashed. ii) Teachers of education Department or Tribal welfare Department are held entitled to get the benefit of Krammonnati under the policy dated 21.3.1983, 19.4.1999 and 2.11.2001 in accordance with the terms and conditions as specified therein. iii) In view of the said directions, if the orders of recovery passed by the Government against petitioners are quashed, and if any amount is recovered Prerna from them for said reasons be refunded back to them within three months with interest at the rate of 6% per annum, on failure to comply the said directions within the aforesaid time, the interest at the rate 9% per annum will be levyable. iv) In some of the cases the benefit of second Krammonnati has not been allowed to the petitioners, however on due consideration of their cases, the respondents are directed to do the needful in accordance with the policy dated 21.3.1983, 19.4.1999, 2.11.2001 and 3.9.2005 and settled their claim including post retiral and pensionary benefits within the period of six months from today and the arrears thereof be released along with permissible amount of interest under the law.%u201D It is observed that petitioner has directly approached this Court without filing any application before the authorities. In view of the aforesaid the petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of with the direction to the fact that in case the petitioner file representation before the authorities claiming the aforesaid benefit along with the copy of the order passed today and the copy of this petition, the concerned authority shall examine the same keeping in mind the order passed by this Court in the case of Smt. Prerna (supra) and by the Chhatisgarh High Court in the case of Om Prakash Sharma (supra) expeditiously in accordance with law and in case the petitioner is found entitled, benefit of the same shall be extended to the petitioner. However, it is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and therefore, the authority would be at liberty to examine the matter keeping all facts and facets into consideration and thereafter either accept or reject the representation by passing a reasoned order. With the aforesaid direction, the petition filed by the petitioner stands disposed of. C.C. as per rules. (Ms. Vandana Kasrekar) Judge manju  <object type="application/pdf" id="ggg_object" style="display: none"></object>  </div>

Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Haridutt Vaidhya vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 19 January, 2015