Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Maniram Rajput vs State Of M.P. on 31 March, 2022

Author: Vivek Agarwal

Bench: Vivek Agarwal

                                                        1
                                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                AT JABALPUR
                                                        BEFORE
                                          HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWAL
                                               ON THE 31st OF MARCH, 2022

                                           WRIT PETITION No. 7544 of 2022

                              Between:-
                              MANIRAM RAJPUT S/O SHRI HALKAI PRASAD
                              RAJPUT , AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
                              GRAM ROJGAR SAHAYAK POSTED AT GRAM
                              PANCHAYAT    DOH,    JANPAD    PANCHAYAT
                              BALDEVGARH,    DISTT.   TIKAMGARH    M.P.
                              (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                    .....PETITIONER
                              (NONE FOR THE PETITIONER)

                              AND

                      1.      STATE OF M.P. THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
                              PANCHAYAT     AND   RURAL    DEVELOPMENT
                              DEPARTMENT MANTRALAY, VALLABH BHAWAN
                              BHOPAL, M.P. (MADHYA PRADESH)

                      2.      COMMISSIONER M.P. RAJYA ROJGAR GURANTEE
                              PARISHAD, BHOPAL, M.P. BHOPAL, M.P. (MADHYA
                              PRADESH)

                      3.      COLLECTOR TIKAMGARH DISTT. TIKAMGARH,
                              M.P. (MADHYA PRADESH)

                      4.      PROGRAME OFFICER MANREGA SCHEME M.P.
                              JANPAD   PANCHAYAT BALDEVGARH,  M.P.
                              (MADHYA PRADESH)

                      5.      GAJENDRA SINGH LODHI GRAM ROJGAR
                              SAHAYAK, GRAM PANCHAYAT TILA JANPAD
                              PANCHAYAT BALDEVGARH, M.P. (MADHYA
                              PRADESH)

                                                                                  .....RESPONDENTS
                              (BY SHRI JITENDRA SHRIVASTAVA, PANEL LAWYER)

                            This petition has come up for hearing on admission on this day, the court
                      passed the following:
                                                         ORDER

Petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging order dated 22/3/2022 passed by Programme Officer, MANREGA whereby petitioner who is working as Gram Rojgar Sahayak at Gram Panchayat, Doh has been attached to Office of Signature SAN Verified Not Janpad Panchayat, Baldevgarh and work of Gram Panchayat, Doh has been Digitally signed by handed over to one Gajendra Singh Lodhi. TULSA SINGH Date: 2022.03.31 17:14:38 IST 2 Petitioner's contention is that petitioner's appointment being contractual, his services are not liable to be attached. Petitioner has placed on record copy of his appointment letter dated 10/06/2011 to support his contention and has placed reliance on some of the orders of this Court. However, fact of the matter is that M.P. Rajya Rojgar Guarantee Parishad vide order dated 24/07/2017 has prepared a policy in regard to transfer of contract employees who have put in more than three years of service at a place to transfer them from one Janpad Panchayat to another within the same District.

Since that policy is also invoked and has been considered by this Court in W.P. No.1160/2021 decided on 29/03/2022, petitioner's attachment, when tested on the touch stone of the policy dated 24/07/2017, cannot be faulted with.

Accordingly, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed.

(VIVEK AGARWAL) JUDGE ts