Madhya Pradesh High Court
Deepak Singh Yadav vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 15 April, 2015
W.P.1332/14 1
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
BENCH AT GWALIOR
JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL.
Writ Petition No. 1332/14
Karan Singh Parihar & Ors.
Vs.
State of M.P. & Ors.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri H.K.Shukla, Advocate for the petitioners.
Shri Praveen Newaskar, Dy.Govt. Advocate for the respondents/
State.
Shri Vivek Khedkar, Advocate for respondent No.6.
Writ Petition No. 1858/14
Jitendra Singh Yasdav
Vs.
State of M.P. & Ors.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri Neeraj Shrivastava, Advocate for the petitioners.
Shri Praveen Newaskar, Dy.Govt. Advocate for the respondents/
State.
Shri Vivek Khedkar, Advocate for respondent No.8.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Writ Petition No. 2419/14
Arvind Singh Tomar & Ors.
Vs.
State of M.P. & Ors.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri R.P.Singh, Advocate for the petitioners.
Shri Praveen Newaskar, Dy.Govt. Advocate for the respondents/
State.
Shri S.P.Jain, Advocate for respondent No.13.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Writ Petition No. 2849/14
Smt. Archana Rawat & Ors.
Vs.
State of M.P. & Ors.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri Neeraj Shrivastava, Advocate for the petitioners.
Shri Praveen Newaskar, Dy.Govt. Advocate for the respondents/
State.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Writ Petition No. 3092/14
Ram Naresh Singh & Ors.
Vs.
State of M.P. & Ors.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri S.S.Kushwaha, Advocate for the petitioners.
Shri Praveen Newaskar, Dy.Govt. Advocate for the respondents/
State.
Shri Vivek Khedkar, Advocate for respondent No.6.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
W.P.1332/14 2
Writ Petition No. 7327/14
Padam Narayan Mishra & Ors.
Vs.
State of M.P. & Ors.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri R.P.Singh, Advocate for the petitioners.
Shri Praveen Newaskar, Dy.Govt. Advocate for the respondents/
State.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Writ Petition No. 440/15
Deepak Singh Yadav & Ors.
Vs.
State of M.P. & Ors.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri H.K.Shukla, Advocate for the petitioners.
Shri Praveen Newaskar, Dy.Govt. Advocate for the respondents/
State.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ORDER
( 15 / 04 /2015) This matter will govern the disposal of all the aforesaid writ petitions. Learned counsel for the parties contended that the matters are identical and, therefore, the same are decided by this common order.
Facts are taken from W.P. No. 1332/14.
2. This is second visit of the petitioners to this Court. Earlier they filed W.P.No. 1656/13 which was disposed of in admission stage itself on 19.3.2013. This Court gave liberty to the petitioners to file separate detailed representations along with relevant documents and submit it before the competent authority. It is directed that if such representations are preferred, the said authority shall decide the claim of the petitioners with six weeks. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in view of this order, certain financial benefits were granted to them. The said benefits were sought to be withdrawn by impugned order dated 20.2.2014. The impugned order entails civil consequences and, therefore, could have been passed only after following the principles of natural justice. It is further contended that the recovery has already been stayed by this Court by order dated 5.3.2014. The petitioners relied on recent judgment of Supreme Court reported in 2015 (1) M.P.H.T. 130 (SC) (State of Punjab and others etc. Vs. Rafiq Masih (While Washer) etc. W.P.1332/14 3
3. Prayer is opposed by the other side.
4. It is contended that this Court in the first round has not expressed any view on the entitlement of the petitioners. The authorities erroneously granted the benefit of pay scale. The said grant runs contrary to the rules.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. It is an admitted position that in the first round aforesaid, no directions on merits were given. The respondents were bound to consider the case of the petitioners in accordance with law. Petitioners were entitled for benefit provided they fulfill the requirement of rules/law. However, the impugned order shows that the respondents have decided to take adverse action against the petitioners on the basis of alleged violations of rules while granting benefits in favour of the petitioners. In the impugned order dated 20.2.2014, it is directed that recovery be made. Admittedly, no opportunity has been afforded to the petitioners.
7. Considering the aforesaid, I deem it proper to dispose of this petition by directing the respondents that if they intend to take any coercive action against the petitioners which may amount to "civil consequence", it will be lawful for them to afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. After affording opportunity, the respondents may pass appropraite orders in accordance with law. The petitioners will be at liberty to put forth their case and even rely on the judgment of Supreme Court in Rafiq Masih (supra). Till opportunity is provided to the petitioners, the interim order passed by this Court staying recovery shall continue.
8. Petitions are disposed of without expressing any view on the merits of the case.
(Sujoy Paul) Judge vv