Madhya Pradesh High Court
Upendra Kumar Kaliya vs South Eastern Coal Fields Limited on 1 March, 2013
Review Petition No.986/2012
01.03.2013
Mr. Satish Shrivastava, learned counsel for the
petitioner.
Mr. K.B. Bhatnagar, learned counsel for the
respondents.
Heard on I.A. No. 14613/2012, an application for
condonation of delay.
For the reasons assigned in the application, which is
duly supported by an affidavit, I find that sufficient reason
has been shown for condoning the delay in filing the review
petition is made out. Accordingly, the delay is condoned.
I.A. No.14613/2012 is allowed.
Heard.
This petition has been filed for review of the
judgment dated 09.10.2012 passed by this Court in Second
Appeal No.287/1996.
This Court vide judgment dated 09.10.2012 had
dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioner on the
ground that the plea with regard to validity of quit notice
was neither raised before the Trial Court nor before the
Lower Appellate Court. Since the plea of validity of quit
notice is mixed question of law and fact, it cannot be
allowed to be raised for the first time in appeal.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
plea with regard to quit notice can be taken for the first
time in second appeal. In support of aforesaid submission,
learned counsel for the petitioner has referred on the
decision of Supreme Court in the case of J.C. Chatterjee
& others Vs. Shri Sri Kishan Tandon and another, AIR
1972 SC 2526.
I have considered the submissions made by learned
counsel for the petitioner. In para-7 of the aforesaid
judgment, the Supreme Court has held that if the plea of
validity of quit notice is pure question of law, the same can
be allowed to be raised for the first time in second appeal.
But when the plea of validity of quit notice is mixed
question of law and fact, the same cannot be allowed to be
raised for the first time in appeal.
The scope of judicial review is limited and an order or
judgment can only be reviewed if it is found that it suffers
from the error apparent on the face of record or for any
other reason akin to those provided under Order 47 Rule 1
of C.P.C. The appellant cannot be given liberty to
readdress the Court on merits because it is not an appeal
in disguise where the judgment is to be considered on
merits. See : Ataullah Khan Vs. State of M.P. (1988
MPLJ 99) or J.R. Raghupathy Vs. State of A.P. (AIR
1988 SC 1681).The judgment of which review is sought
does not suffers from any infirmity apparent on the face of
the record.
For the aforementioned reasons, the review petition
fails and is hereby dismissed.
(Alok Aradhe)
Judge
RC.
Writ Petition No.9823/2012
01.03.2013
Mr. D.K. Dixit, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Mr. P.K. Kaurav, learned Additional Advocate
General for the respondents No.1 and 2.
Mr. Swapnil Ganguly, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondent No.3.
With the consent of learned counsel for the parties,
the matter is heard finally.
In this writ petition, the petitioner inter-alia seeks
quashment of order dated 26.6.2012, by which the charge
of the Registrar has been assigned to the respondent
No.4.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner holds the substantive post of Additional Director
(Treasury & Accounts). It is further submitted that the
petitioner is senior to respondent No.4 and holds the
post, which carries the same scale of pay as that of the
post of the Registrar. However, when the Registrar is not
available to perform the duties, the charge of the post is
assigned to respondent No.4, who is junior to the
petitioner. It is further submitted that being aggrieved by
the action of the University, the petitioner had submitted a
representation. In the light of the representation
submitted by the petitioner, the Vice-Chancellor of the
University has sought clarification from the State
Government vide communication dated 15.6.2012.
However the same has failed to evoke any response.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the
respondents No.1 and 2 submitted that instructions dated
27.3.2009 issued by the State Government are being
followed. Learned Panel Lawyer submits that the suitable
decision shall be taken on the communication by the
Principal Secretary, Department of Higher Education
within such time limit as may be directed by this Court.
In view of submissions made by learned counsel for
the parties and in the facts of the case, the writ petition is
disposed of with a direction that the Principal Secretary,
Department of Higher Education shall take suitable action
on the communication, which has been sent by the Vice-
Chancellor dated 15.6.2012 within a period of three weeks
from the date of production of the certified copy of the
order passed today.
Certified copy as per rules.
(Alok Aradhe)
Judge
RC.
Writ Petition No.5135/2012
01.03.2013
Mr. Vikas Mishra, learned counsel for the
petitioners.
Mr. P.K. Kaurav, learned Additional Advocate
General for the respondents.
Learned Additional Advocate General prays for and
is granted one week's time to file an appropriate
application.
Heard on I.A. No.2869/2013.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
Indore Bench of this Court in W.P. No.3810/2012 has
passed the following order :
"In the meantime operation of Circular
(Annexure P/4) dated 04/02/2012 shall
remain stayed so far as it relates to
removal of In-charge Chief Municipal
Officers. However, the respondents are
free to proceed to convene the DPC.
Reply be filed within a period of four
weeks."
However, despite the interim order, the petitioners
have been relieved from post of the In-charge, Chief
Municipal Officer.
In view of the order passed by the Indore Bench of
this Court, it is directed that the operation and effect of
the order dated 22.2.2013 shall remain stayed till next
date of hearing.
Certified copy as per rules.
(Alok Aradhe)
Judge
RC.
Writ Petition No.3148/2013
01.03.2013
Mr. Shailendra Verma, learned counsel for the
petitioner.
Heard on the question of admission as well as
interim relief.
On payment of P.F. by registered post
acknowledgment due within one week, issue notice of the
writ petition to the respondents.
Notices be made returnable within a period of four
weeks.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner is still working on the post of Gram Rozgar
Sahayak, therefore, he be permitted to continue on the
said post.
In view of submissions made by learned counsel for
the petitioner and in the facts of the case, it is directed
that the status-quo with regard to functioning of the
petitioner on the post in question, as it exists on today,
shall be maintained.
Certified copy as per rules.
(Alok Aradhe)
Judge
RC.
Writ Petition No.3119/2013
(Compassionate Basis)
01.03.2013
Mr. P.S. Tomar, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Mr. Vivek Sharma, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondents.
With consent of the parties, the matter is heard finally.
In this petition, the petitioner seeks a direction to the
respondents to grant appointment to his aunt on
compassionate basis.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
husband of the aunt of the petitioner, who was working as
Constable bearing No.187 in the respondents' establishment
died on 27.11.1990 during course of employment. It is
further submitted that the instant petition be disposed of
with the direction to the respondents to consider the
representation filed by the aunt of the petitioner for grant of
compassionate appointment.
Taking into account the submissions made by learned
counsel for the petitioner and in the facts of the case, the
writ petition is disposed of with the direction to the
Competent Authority to consider and decide the
representation filed by the aunt of the petitioner for grant of
compassionate appointment expeditiously. Needless to state
that the Competent Authority while deciding the
representation, shall pass a speaking order. It is made clear
that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits
of the case.
Certified copy as per rules.
(Alok Aradhe)
Judge
RC.
Writ Petition No.10986/2004
01.03.2013
Mr. Vikram Johri, learned counsel for the
respondents.
As prayed, let the writ petition be listed immediately
after two weeks.
(Alok Aradhe)
Judge
RC.
Writ Petition No.4843/2002
01.03.2013
Learned counsel for the respondents prays for and is
granted two weeks' further time, by way of last indulgence,
to file the reply.
(Alok Aradhe)
Judge
RC.
Writ Petition No.15014/2012
01.03.2013
Mr. Sunil Singh Sengar, learned counsel for the
petitioner prays for and is granted two weeks' time to
argue the matter on the question of maintainability of the
petition.
(Alok Aradhe)
Judge
RC.
Writ Petition No.17734/2012
01.03.2013
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that first
office objection has been cured. It is further submitted that
with a view to cure second office objection he has filed I.A.
No.18/2013 is filed, which is pending consideration.
For reasons stated in the application, I.A.
No.18/2013 is allowed.
Let necessary amendment be carried out within a
period one week.
(Alok Aradhe)
Judge
RC.
Writ Petition No.13162/2005
01.03.2013
Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for and is
granted two weeks' time to file the rejoinder.
(Alok Aradhe)
Judge
RC.
Writ Petition No.8760/2007
01.03.2013
Mr. Rajesh Tiwari, learned Government Advocate
prays for and is granted four weeks' time to file reply.
Interim order dated 20.7.2007 shall continue till next
date of hearing.
(Alok Aradhe)
Judge
RC.
Writ Petition No.5142/2011
01.03.2013
Learned Government Advocate submits that the
order of suspension of the petitioner has been revoked.
In view of aforesaid statement, learned counsel for
the petitioner prays for time to seek instructions in this
regard and to make statement before this Court.
As prayed, let the writ petition be listed after two
weeks.
(Alok Aradhe)
Judge
RC.
Writ Petition No.7476/2009
01.03.2013
Mr. L.C. Chourasiya, learned counsel for the
respondents prays for and is granted two weeks' time to
file reply.
Interim order dated 12.5.2010 shall continue till
next date of hearing.
(Alok Aradhe)
Judge
RC.
Writ Petition No.15547/2010
01.03.2013
Mr. Gajendra Tamsikar, learned counsel for the
petitioner.
Mr. Rajesh Tiwari, learned Government Advocate for
the respondents.
Heard on I.A. No.15054/2012, an application for
amendment.
Taking into account the nature of proposed
amendment and for the reasons stated in the application,
the same is allowed.
Let necessary amendment be carried out within a
period of one week.
Documents filed vide I.A. No.12887/2012 are
taken on record.
Accordingly, I.A. No.12887/2012 is allowed.
Learned Government Advocate may file an
additional reply within a period of three weeks, if so
advised.
(Alok Aradhe)
Judge
RC.
Writ Petition No.7937/2011
01.03.2013
Parties through their counsel.
In view of order dated 17.12.2012, let the writ
petition be listed in its own turn for hearing.
(Alok Aradhe)
Judge
RC
Writ Petition No.11490/2011
01.03.2013
Learned counsel for the respondent No.6 prays
for and is granted three weeks' further time to file the
reply.
It is made clear that in case the reply is not filed
by the next date of hearing, this Court shall consider
forfeiting the right of the respondent No.6 to file the
reply.
(Alok Aradhe)
Judge
RC
Writ Petition No.19087/2011
01.03.2013
Learned Government Advocate prays for and is
granted four weeks' time to file the return.
(Alok Aradhe)
Judge
RC
Writ Petition No.19222/2011
01.03.2013
Rejoinder filed vide I.A. No.10062/2012 is
taken on record.
Learned Government Advocate may go through
the same and may file an additional reply within a
period of three weeks, if so advised.
(Alok Aradhe)
Judge
RC
Writ Petition No.21518/2011
01.03.2013
Let the reply on behalf of respondent No.5 be
filed within a period of three weeks.
(Alok Aradhe)
Judge
RC
Writ Petition No.3174/2013
01.03.2013
Mr. V.K. Shukla, learned counsel for the
petitioner.
Mr. Vivek Sharma, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondents.
Heard.
In this writ petition, the petitioner has
challenged the validity of order dated 13.12.2012, by
which the representation submitted by the petitioner
in compliance of order dated 7.8.2012 passed in W.P.
No.11192/2012 has been rejected.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
being aggrieved by the order of transfer dated
15.7.2012, the petitioner filed the aforesaid writ
petition, which was disposed of by this Court vide
order dated 7.8.2012 with a direction to the
Competent Authority to decide the representation
submitted by the petitioner. However, in compliance
of the aforesaid order, the representation submitted
by the petitioner has been decided by the
Commissioner, Land Record, who is not the
Competent Authority. It is further submitted that the
writ petition be disposed of with a direction to the
Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Vallabh
Bhawan to decide the representation submitted by the
petitioner. On the other hand, learned Panel Lawyer
submits that the representation submitted by the
petitioner shall be dealt with by the respondent No.1
in accordance with law.
In view of submissions made by learned counsel
for the parties and in the facts of the case, the order
dated 13.12.2012 is hereby quashed. The Principal
Secretary, Revenue Department, Vallabh Bhawan is
directed to consider and decide the representation
submitted by the petitioner within a period of four
weeks' from the date of receipt of certified copy of the
order passed today, by a speaking order. Till the
representation submitted by the petitioner is decided,
status-quo with regard to the posting of the petitioner
shall be maintained. It is made clear that this Court
has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the
case.
Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of.
Certified copy as per rules.
(Alok Aradhe)
Judge
RC
Writ Petition No.3155/2013
01.03.2013
Mr. Pushpendra Yadav, learned counsel for the
petitioner.
Mr. Vivek Sharma, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondents No.1 and 2.
Heard.
In this writ petition, the petitioner inter-alia
seeks a direction to the respondents to regularize the
services of the petitioner on the post of Gardener.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a
resolution has already been passed by the President-
in-Council, by which it was resolved to regularize the
services of the petitioner but the Chief Municipal
Officer is not passing any order for regularization of
the petitioner.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the writ petition be disposed of with a direction to the
Chief Municipal Officer to consider the claim of the
petitioner for regularization in the light of resolution
passed by the President-in-Council.
In view of aforesaid submissions made by
learned counsel for the petitioner and in the facts of
the case, the writ petition is disposed of with a
direction to the Chief Municipal Officer to take a
decision with regard to regularization of the services
of the petitioner in the light of resolution passed by
the President-in-Council. Needless to state that the
claim of regularization of the petitioner shall be
decided by the Chief Municipal Officer by a speaking
order within a period of four weeks from the date of
receipt of the certified copy of the order passed today.
It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any
opinion on the merits of the case.
Certified copy as per rules.
(Alok Aradhe)
Judge
RC
Writ Petition No.6735/2012
01.03.2013
Parties through their counsel.
Mrs. Indira Nair, learned Senior Counsel for the
respondents submits that the issue involved in the
instant writ petition is subjudice before the Supreme
Court.
In view of aforesaid statement, let the writ
petition be listed after three weeks.
(Alok Aradhe)
Judge
RC
Writ Petition No.3117/2013
01.03.2013
Mr. Manoj Chandurkar, learned counsel for the
petitioner.
Mr. Vivek Sharma, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondents.
Heard.
In this writ petition, the petitioner inter-alia
seeks a direction to the respondents to decide the
representations submitted by him.
The facts leading filing of the writ petition
briefly stated are that the petitioner vide order dated
5.4.2012 was promoted to the post of Forest Guard
and was posted at Khara Beet for doing the field
work. The petitioner thereupon submitted the
representations on 16.4.2012, 2.1.2013 and 4.2.2013
for assigning him office work on medical grounds.
However, the representations have failed to evoke any
response. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that the writ petition be disposed of with a direction
to the Competent Authority to consider and decide the
representations submitted by the petitioner. On the
other hand learned Panel Lawyer submitted that the
representations submitted by the petitioner shall be
dealt with in accordance with law.
In view of submissions made by learned counsel
for the parties and as agreed to by them, the writ
petition is disposed of with a direction to the
Competent Authority to consider and decide the
representations submitted by the petitioner within a
period of four weeks from the date of receipt of
certified copy of the order passed today by a speaking
order. It is made clear that this Court has not
expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.
Certified copy as per rules.
(Alok Aradhe)
Judge
RC
Writ Petition No.3109/2013
01.03.2013
Mr. Jitendra Tiwari, learned counsel for the
petitioner prays for adjournment in order to enable
him to place on record certain documents.
As prayed, let the writ petition be listed
alongwith W.P. No.3264/2013 for analogous hearing in
the course of next week.
(Alok Aradhe)
Judge
RC.
Writ Petition No.3100/2013
01.03.2013
Mr. G.S. Gaharwar, learned counsel for the petitioner.
On payment of P.F. by registered post with
acknowledgment due within one week, issue notice of
this petition to the respondents.
Notices be made returnable within a period of
four weeks.
(Alok Aradhe)
Judge
RC.
Writ Petition No.3129/2013
01.03.2013
Mr. Atul Choudhary, learned counsel for the
petitioner.
On payment of P.F. by registered post with
acknowledgment due within one week, issue notice of
this petition to the respondents.
(Alok Aradhe)
Judge
RC.
Writ Petition No.3145/2013
01.03.2013
Let the writ petition be listed before appropriate
Bench as per roster.
(Alok Aradhe)
Judge
RC.
Review Petition No.702/2012
01.03.2013
Let the reply on behalf of respondents be filed within
further time period of three weeks.
(Alok Aradhe)
Judge
RC.
Review Petition No.57/2013
01.03.2013
Mr. Rajendra Gupta, learned counsel for the
petitioner submits that the matter is to be argued by Mr.
Ajay Mishra, learned Senior Counsel, who is out of station.
As prayed, let the review petition be listed after one
week.
(Alok Aradhe)
Judge
RC.
Review Petition No.113/2013
01.03.2013
Mr. R.K. Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioners.
Mr. Swapnil Ganguly, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondents.
Heard.
In this petition, the petitioners seek review of order
dated 09.1.2013, by which the writ petition preferred by
the petitioner was disposed of vide order dated 09.01.2013
in view of submissions made by learned counsel for the
parties that controversy involved in the writ petition is
covered by order dated 10.10.2012 passed in writ petition
No.17082/2012.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
order dated 09.1.2013 be modified and the competent
authority be directed to take into account the circular
dated 14.8.2012 while deciding the grievance of the
petitioners.
Learned Panel Lawyer has not opposed the prayer
made by learned counsel for the petitioners.
In view of submissions made by learned counsel for
the parties and as agreed to by them, the order dated
09.1.2013 is modified and it is directed that the respondent
No.4 while deciding the grievance of the petitioners shall
also take into account the circular dated 14.8.2012.
Accordingly, the review petition is disposed of.
Certified copy as per rules.
(Alok Aradhe)
Judge
RC.
Writ Petition No.7579/2009
01.03.2013
Let I.A. No.16436/2012 be listed for consideration in
the month of April, 2013.
(Alok Aradhe)
Judge
RC.
Writ Petition No.5369/1998
28.2.2013
Mr. Rajas Pohankar, learned counsel for the
petitioner.
None for the respondent No.1.
Arguments heard.
Order dictated, signed & dated separately.
(Alok Aradhe)
Judge
RC.
Writ Petition No.9163/2009
28.02.2013
Mr. A.K. Pathak, learned counsel for the petitioners.
Mr. Piyush Dharmadhikari, learned Government
Advocate for the respondents No.1 and 2.
Mr. Hemant Shrivastava, learned counsel for the
respondent No.3.
As prayed by learned counsel for the petitioners,
let the writ petition be listed in the course of next week.
(Alok Aradhe)
Judge
RC
Writ Petition No.449/2009
28.02.2013
Mr. R.N. Tiwari, learned counsel for the
petitioner.
Mr. Rajas Pohankar, learned counsel for the
respondents.
Learned counsel for the respondents submitted
that petitioner had appeared for recruitment on the
post of Junior Engineer (Trainee). The cut-off marks of
the written examination were fixed as 36. The
petitioner secured 26 marks in the written
examination. Therefore, the petitioner did not clear
the written examination. The respondents prays for
and is granted one weeks' time to bring on record the
result of the petitioner.
The respondents shall keep the relevant record
in respect of selection for recruitment on the post
Junior Engineer (Trainee) on the next date of hearing.
(Alok Aradhe)
Judge
RC.
Writ Petition No.8866/2012
28.02.2013
Mrs. Sudha Gautam, learned counsel for the
petitioner.
Mr. Piyush Dharmadhikari, learned Government
Advocate for the respondents No.1 to 3 submits that
the reply has been filed today. However, the same is
not on record.
Office is directed to trace the same and place it
on record.
As prayed, let the writ petition be listed in the
course of next week.
(Alok Aradhe)
Judge
RC.
Writ Petition No.____________
28.02.2013
Let the writ petition be listed along with W.P.
No.1813/2013 for analogous hearing on 12.03.2013.
(Alok Aradhe)
Judge
RC.
Writ Petition No.1813/2013
28.02.2013
Mrs. Indira Nair, learned Senior Counsel with
Mr. Rajas Pohankar, learned counsel for the
petitioner.
Mr. O.P. Namdeo, learned counsel for the
respondents submits that the return shall be filed by
tomorrow i.e. 01.03.2013.
Heard on the question of interim relief.
Learned Senior Counsel submits that the writ
petition involving similar issue has already been
entertained and the interim order has been granted.
In this connection, learned Senior Counsel has invited
the attention of this Court to the order dated
10.09.2012 passed in W.P. No.14975/2012.
In view of aforesaid statement and with a view to
maintain parity, the operation of impugned order
dated 31.7.2012 as well as order dated 10.1.2012
shall remain stayed and no coercive action shall be
taken against the petitioner till next date of hearing.
As prayed by learned counsel for the parties, let
the writ petition be listed on 12.03.2013.
(Alok Aradhe)
Judge
RC.
Writ Petition No.21786/2012
28.02.2013
Mr. Atul Kumar Rai, learned counsel for the
petitioner once again prays for adjournment in order
to enable him to place on record the decision of the
Scrutiny Committee dated 6.1.1993.
Let the writ petition be listed after 10 days.
(Alok Aradhe)
Judge
RC.
Writ Petition No.2838/2013
28.02.2013
Mr. Gajendra Tamsikar, learned counsel for the
petitioner.
Mr. Piyush Dharmadhikari, learned Government
Advocate for the respondents.
Heard.
In this writ petition, the petitioner has
challenged the validity of order dated 11.2.2013, by
which the petitioner, who is Auxiliary Nurse cum
Midwife has been transferred from Primary Health
Centre, Bhagwa to Sub Health Centre, Bumnaur and
the respondent No.5 has been posted in place of the
petitioner.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the order of transfer has been passed in violation of
transfer policy with a view to accommodate
respondent No.5. It is further submitted that the writ
petition be disposed of by granting liberty to the
petitioner to submit a representation to the
Competent Authority and the Competent Authority be
directed to consider and decide the same. On the
other hand, learned Government Advocate submits
that the representation submitted by the petitioner
shall be dealt with in accordance with law.
In view of submissions made by learned counsel
for the parties and as agreed to by them, the writ
petition is disposed of with a direction that in case the
petitioner submits a representation to the Competent
Authority within a period of one week from the date of
receipt of certified copy of the order passed today, the
same shall be decided by the Competent Authority by
a speaking order within a period of six weeks from the
date of receipt of such a representation. Till the
representation submitted by the petitioner is decided
by the Competent Authority, the petitioner shall be
allowed to continue at present place of posting i.e.
Primary Health Centre, Bhagwa. It is made clear that
this Court has not expressed any opinion on the
merits of the case.
Certified copy as per rules.
(Alok Aradhe)
Judge
RC.
Writ Petition No.3102/2013
28.02.2013
Mr. Gajendra Tamsikar, learned counsel for the
petitioner.
Mr. Piyush Dharmadhikari, learned Government
Advocate for the respondents.
Heard.
In this writ petition, the petitioner has
challenged the validity of order dated 21.02.2013, by
which the petitioner, who is Assistant Grade-III has
been transferred from Office of Tahsildar, Kotma to
Office of Tahsildar, Pushprajgarh.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
only six months ago he joined the Office of Tahsildar
at Kotma and the order of transfer has been passed
during ban period in violation of policy of transfer. It
is further submitted that the writ petition be disposed
of by granting liberty to the petitioner to submit a
representation to the Competent Authority and the
Competent Authority be directed to consider and
decide the same. On the other hand, learned
Government Advocate submits that the
representation submitted by the petitioner shall be
dealt with in accordance with law.
In view of submissions made by learned counsel
for the parties and as agreed to by them, the writ
petition is disposed of with a direction that in case the
petitioner submits a representation to the Competent
Authority within a period of one week from the date of
receipt of certified copy of the order passed today, the
same shall be decided by the Competent Authority by
a speaking order within a period of six weeks from the
date of receipt of such a representation. Till the
representation submitted by the petitioner is decided
by the Competent Authority, the petitioner shall be
allowed to continue at present place of posting i.e.
Office of Tahsildar, Kotma. It is made clear that this
Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of
the case.
Certified copy as per rules.
(Alok Aradhe)
Judge
RC.
Writ Petition No.3172/2013
28.02.2013
Mr. Anubhav Jain, learned counsel for the
petitioner.
Mr. Vivek Sharma, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondents.
With consent of learned counsel for the parties,
the matter is heard finally.
In this writ petition, the petitioner has
challenged the validity of order dated 19.02.2013, by
which the representation submitted by the petitioner
in pursuance of order dated 31.12.2012 passed by a
Bench of this Court in W.P. No.22142/2012 has been
rejected.
Learned counsel for the petitioner, while inviting
the attention of this Court to the aforesaid order
submitted that while disposing of the writ petition, a
Bench of this Court had observed that while deciding
the representation, the respondents shall consider
whether there are vacancies in any of the district
adjoining to Katni and if, the administrative exigency
so permits, whether it is possible to accommodate the
petitioner in a district situate near to Katni. However,
the aforesaid aspect has not been considered by the
Commissioner, Land Records and Settlement, while
passing the impugned order. Learned Panel Lawyer
for the respondents was unable to point out from the
impugned order that the Commissioner, Land Records
and Settlement, while deciding the representation
has considered the aforesaid aspect.
For the aforementioned reasons, the impugned
order dated 19.02.2013 is hereby quashed. The
Commissioner, Land Records and Settlement, is
directed to consider the representation submitted by
the petitioner afresh and to record a specific finding
whether the vacancies are available in the district
which situate adjoining Katni and whether it is
possible to post the petitioner in any of the district
situate adjoining Katni. The aforesaid exercise shall
be carried out by the Commissioner, Land Records
and Settlement, within a period of four weeks from
the the date of receipt of certified copy of the order
passed today, by a speaking order.
Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of.
Certified copy as per rules.
(Alok Aradhe)
Judge
RC.
W.P.No.2766/2013
27.2.2013
Mr. Santosh Meshram, learned counsel for the
petitioners.
Mr.R.Tiwari, learned Government Advocate for
the respondents.
With the consent of parties, the matter is heard
finally.
In this writ petition, the petitioner, inter alia ,
seeks a direction to the respondents to absorb the
services of the petitioners in Adhyapak Samvarg
from Shiksha Karmi- III.
Learned counsel for the parties jointly submit
that the controversy involved in the instant writ
petition is squarely covered by order dated
30.7.2012 passed by Indore Bench of this Court in
W.P.No.7387/2012(S).
In view of the submissions made by learned
counsel for the parties and as agreed to by them,
the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to
the respondents to consider the case of the
petitioner in the light of order passed by Division
Bench in W.A.No.596/2010 (Gopal Chawla and others
vs. State of M.P. and others) and pass appropriate
orders. Needless to state, the competent authority
shall pass a speaking order and shall take decision
within a period of three months from the date of
receipt of certified copy of the order passed today.
C.C. as per rules.
(Alok Aradhe)
Judge
RC
W.P.No.2981/2013
27.2.2013
Mr. A.K. Gupta, learned counsel for the
petitioners.
Mr.R.Tiwari, learned Government Advocate for
the respondents.
With the consent of parties, the matter is heard
finally.
In this writ petition, the petitioner, inter alia ,
seeks a direction to the respondents to absorb the
services of the petitioners in Adhyapak Samvarg
from Shiksha Karmi- III.
Learned counsel for the parties jointly submit
that the controversy involved in the instant writ
petition is squarely covered by order dated
30.7.2012 passed by Indore Bench of this Court in
W.P.No.7387/2012(S).
In view of the submissions made by learned
counsel for the parties and as agreed to by them,
the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to
the respondents to consider the case of the
petitioner in the light of order passed by Division
Bench in W.A.No.596/2010 (Gopal Chawla and others
vs. State of M.P. and others) and pass appropriate
orders. Needless to state, the competent authority
shall pass a speaking order and shall take decision
within a period of three months from the date of
receipt of certified copy of the order passed today.
C.C. as per rules.
(Alok Aradhe)
Judge
RC
W.P. No.1410/2013
27.02.2013
Mr. D.K. Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Mr. Swapnil Ganguly, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondents.
Heard on I.A. No.2382/2013.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on
account of typing mistake in the order dated 30.01.2013, it
is directed that the petitioner shall be allowed to continue
at Forest Range [P], Narsinghpur Forest Division (T),
Narsinghpur, till next date of hearing. It is further
submitted that instead of Forest Range [P], the words
Forest Range [T] ought to have been typed.
In view of aforesaid statement, it is directed that the
words Forest Range [P], wherever it occurs in the order
dated 30.1.2013 shall be read as Forest Range [T].
Accordingly, I.A. No.2382/2013 is disposed of.
Certified copy as per rules.
(Alok Aradhe)
Judge
RC
Writ Petition No.18302/2012
27.02.2013
Learned Government Advocate prays for and is
granted two weeks' time to file the return.
(Alok Aradhe)
Judge
RC
Writ Petition No.16701/2012
27.02.2013
Mr. Mayank Singh Thakur, learned counsel for the
petitioners prays for and is granted two weeks' time to
file rejoinder.
(Alok Aradhe)
Judge
RC
Writ Petition No.16647/2012
27.02.2013
Mr. Mayank Singh Thakur, learned counsel for the
petitioners prays for and is granted two weeks' time to
file rejoinder.
(Alok Aradhe)
Judge
RC
Writ Petition No.12194/2012
27.02.2013
Learned Government Advocate prays for and is
granted two weeks' further time to file an additional
return.
Interim order dated 31.10.2012 shall continue till
next date of hearing.
(Alok Aradhe)
Judge
RC
Writ Petition No.9872/2012
27.02.2013
Learned Government Advocate prays for and is
granted two weeks' further time to file an additional
return.
Interim order dated 5.10.2012 shall continue till
next date of hearing.
(Alok Aradhe)
Judge
RC
Writ Petition No.11075/2012
27.02.2013
Learned Government Advocate prays for and is
granted two weeks' further time to file an additional
return.
Interim order dated 5.10.2012 shall continue till
next date of hearing.
(Alok Aradhe)
Judge
RC
Writ Petition No.2809/2013
27.02.2013
Mr. Brijesh Choubey, learned counsel for the
petitioner.
Mr. Swapnil Ganguly, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondents.
Let the writ petition be listed tomorrow i.e. 28th
February, 2013.
(Alok Aradhe)
Judge
RC
Writ Petition No.2532/2013
27.02.2013
Petitioner in person.
Mr. Swapnil Ganguly, learned Panel Lawyer for
the respondents.
Heard.
In this writ petition, the petitioner inter-alia
seeks quashment of enquiry report dated 09.08.2012.
The petitioner submitted that the departmental
enquiry has been held against him in violation of
principles of statutory rules as well as principles of
natural justice. It is further submitted the documents
which were sought by him were not supplied to him.
Even the prayer for change of enquiry officer made to
the Competent Authority, was not decided.
The petitioner further submits that the writ
petition be disposed of and the petitioner be granted
liberty to submit objection to the Disciplinary
Authority and the Disciplinary Authority be directed
to consider and decide the same. On the other hand,
learned Panel Lawyer submits that in case such an
objection is submitted by the petitioner, the same
shall dealt with in accordance with law.
In view of submissions made on both sides and
as agreed to by them, the writ petition is disposed of
with the direction that in case the petitioner submits
an objection within a period of 10 days, the same shall
be decided by the Disciplinary Authority in the by a
speaking order, within a period of one month from the
date of receipt of such an objection. It is made clear
that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the
merits of the case.
Certified copy as per rules.
(Alok Aradhe)
Judge
RC.
Writ Petition No.2632/2013
27.02.2013
Mr. Ashok Gupta, learned counsel for the
petitioner.
Mr. Rajesh Tiwari, learned Government
Advocate for the respondents.
Heard.
In this writ petition, the petitioner seeks
regularization from the date of initial appointment on
the post of Medical Officer in the light of Madhya
Pradesh Regularization of Public Health and Family
Welfare Medical Cadre Contract Appointment Rules,
2005.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the writ petition be disposed of by granting liberty to
the petitioner to submit a representation to the
Competent Authority and the Competent Authority be
directed to consider and decide the same. On the
other hand, learned Government Advocate submits
that the representation submitted by the petitioner
shall dealt with in accordance with law.
In view of submissions made by learned counsel
for the parties and as agreed to by them, the writ
petition is disposed of with a direction that in case
the petitioner submits a representation within a
period of three weeks, the same shall be decided by
the Competent Authority in the light of Madhya
Pradesh Regularization of Public Health and Family
Welfare Medical Cadre Contract Appointment Rules,
2005, by a speaking order, within a period of three
months from the date of receipt of such a
representation. It is made clear that this Court has
not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.
Certified copy as per rules.
(Alok Aradhe)
Judge
RC.
Writ Petition No.2742/2013
27.02.2013
Mr. Ajay Raizada, learned counsel for the
petitioner.
Mr. Swapnil Ganguly, learned Panel Lawyer for
the respondents.
Heard.
In this writ petition, the petitioner inter-alia
seeks quashment of order of suspension dated
05.08.2011.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the petitioner was placed under suspension vide order
dated 05.08.2011. It is further submitted that a Bench
of this Court by order dated 04.12.2012 has stayed
the proceeding in the departmental enquiry, which
was initiated against the petitioner. However, the
petitioner still continues under suspension. Learned
counsel for the petitioner submitted that he has
approached the Competent Authority by submitting a
representation contained in Annexure P/7 for
revocation of order of suspension. However, the same
has failed to evoke any response. It is further
submitted that the writ petition be disposed of with a
direction to the Competent Authority to consider and
decide the same. On the other hand, learned Panel
Lawyer submits that suitable decision shall be taken
on the representation submitted by the petitioner in
accordance with law.
In view of submissions made by learned counsel
for the parties and as agreed to by them, the writ
petition is disposed of with a direction to the
Competent Authority to consider and decide the
representation contained in Annexure P/7 by a
speaking order, within a period of one month from the
date of receipt of certified copy of the order passed
today. It is made clear that this Court has not
expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.
Certified copy as per rules.
(Alok Aradhe)
Judge
RC.
Writ Petition No.3013/2013
27.02.2013
Mr. Mukesh Pandey, learned counsel for the
petitioner.
Heard.
In this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged
the validity of order dated 19.02.2013, by which the
petitioner has been placed under suspension.
Learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submits
that against the aforesaid order of suspension, an appeal
lies under Rule 23 of Madhya Pradesh Civil Service
(Classification, Control & Appeal ) Rule 1966, before the
Appellate Authority.
In view of aforesaid statement, the writ petition is
disposed of with a liberty to the petitioner to prefer an
appeal under Rule 23 of Madhya Pradesh Civil Service
(Classification, Control & Appeal ) Rule 1966, before the
Appellate Authority. In case, the petitioner files an
appeal along with the application for stay, the same
shall be decided by the Appellate Authority expeditiously
preferably within a period of one month from the date of
receipt of certified copy of the order passed today.
Needless to state, the Appellate Authority shall decide
the appeal by a speaking order.
Certified copy as per rules.
(Alok Aradhe)
Judge
RC
Writ Petition No.7068/2004
27.02.2013
Mr. N.S. Ruprah, learned counsel for the
petitioner.
Mr. Mukesh Agrawal, learned counsel for the
respondents.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the issue involved in the writ petition is covered by an
order dated 28.11.2012 passed in W.P. No.5098/2012.
In view of aforesaid statement, Mr. Mukesh
Agrawal, learned counsel for the respondents prays
for adjournment in order to enable him to examine
aforesaid aspect.
As prayed, let the writ petition be listed in the
week commencing 18th March, 2013.
(Alok Aradhe)
Judge
RC.
Writ Petition No.8321/2012
27.02.2013
Mr. Dharmendra Soni, learned counsel for the
petitioner.
Mr. Piyush Dharmadhikari, learned Government
Advocate for the respondents No.1 to 6.
With consent of learned counsel for the parties,
the matter is heard finally.
In this writ petition, the petitioner inter-alia
seeks quashment of order dated 04.02.2010 as well as
a direction to the respondents to maintain the roster
pertaining to reservation under the Madhya Pradesh
Public Health (I.S.M. & H.) (Gazetted) Service
Recruitment Rules 1987 and the Madhya Pradesh Lok
Seva Arakshan Adhiniyam 1994.
When the matter was taken up today for
hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted
that with regard to his grievance, the petitioner has
submitted the representation Annexure P/14 to the
Competent Authority and the writ petition be
disposed of with a direction to the Competent
Authority to consider and decide the same. On the
other hand, learned Government Advocate submits
that suitable decision shall be taken on the
representation submitted by the petitioner in
accordance with law.
In view of submissions made by learned counsel
for the parties and as agreed to by them, the writ
petition is disposed of with a direction to the
Competent Authority to consider and decide the
representation Annexure P/14 by a speaking order,
within a period of two months from the date of receipt
of certified copy of the order passed today. Needless
to state that the Competent Authority shall afford
opportunity of hearing to all necessary parties. It is
made clear that this Court has not expressed any
opinion on the merits of the case.
Certified copy as per rules.
(Alok Aradhe)
Judge
RC.
Writ Petition No.5939/2005
27.02.2013
Mr. S.P. Sharma, learned counsel for the
petitioner.
Mr. Sanjay Gupta, learned counsel for the
respondents.
Learned counsel for the respondents submits
that the matter is not cognizable by this Bench.
In view of aforesaid statement, office to examine
the same and list before appropriate Bench.
(Alok Aradhe)
Judge
RC.
Writ Petition No.13006/2012
27.02.2013
Mr. Rajesh Chand, learned counsel for the
petitioner prays for and is granted three days' time to
comply with the order dated 21.9.2012.
On payment of P.F. by registered post
acknowledgment due within a period of one week,
issue notice of the petition to respondent No.1.
Notice be made returnable within a period of
four weeks.
(Alok Aradhe)
Judge
RC.
ConC. No.1604/2012
27.02.2013
Mr. A.P. Shroti, learned counsel for the
petitioner.
Mr. Umesh Pandey, learned counsel for the
respondent states that he will file the reply to the
contempt petition during course of the day.
Office is directed to trace the same and place it
on record.
As prayed by learned counsel for the parties, let
the petition be listed in the course of next week.
(Alok Aradhe)
Judge
RC.
Writ Petition No.5868/2011
27.02.2013
Mr. N.K. Tiwari, learned counsel for the
petitioner.
Mr. Vivek Sharma, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondents prays for and is granted four weeks'
time to file the return.
The aforesaid prayer is opposed by learned
counsel for the petitioner on the ground that the
petitioner is senior citizen and the matter pertains to
claim of the petitioner for general Provident Fund.
However, in the interest of justice, four weeks'
further time is granted to file the return.
It is made clear that in case, the return is not
filed by the next date of hearing, this Court may
consider directing for personal appearance of Officer
In-charge of the case.
Let a copy of this order be supplied to Mr. Vivek
Sharma, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondents.
(Alok Aradhe)
Judge
RC.
Writ Petition No.5336/2011
27.02.2013
Rejoinder filed vide I.A. No.2713/2013 is taken
on record.
Accordingly, I.A. No.2713/2013 is allowed.
Learned counsel for the petitioner undertakes to
supply a copy of rejoinder to learned counsel for the
respondents during course of the day.
Learned counsel for the respondents may go
through the rejoinder and may file the additional
return, if so advised.
Let I.A. No.2649/2013 be listed for consideration
in the month of May, 2013.
(Alok Aradhe)
Judge
RC.
Writ Petition No.21196/2011
27.02.2013
Parties through their counsel.
Let I.A. No.8984/2012 be listed for
consideration in the month of May, 2013.
(Alok Aradhe)
Judge
RC.
Writ Petition No.21263/2011
27.02.2013
Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for and
is granted two weeks' time to file the rejoinder.
Interim order passed on earlier occasion shall
continue till next date of hearing.
Let the writ petition be listed for further orders
in the week commencing 18.3.2013 for consideration
of I.A. No.11191/2012.
(Alok Aradhe)
Judge
RC.
Writ Petition No.21723/2012
27.02.2013
Mr. R.K. Khare, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Mr. Rajesh Tiwari, learned Government Advocate
for the respondents.
Heard.
In this writ petition, the petitioner inter-alia seeks
a direction to the respondents to appoint him on the
post of Shiksha Karmi Grade-III.
Facts giving rise to filing of the writ petition, briefly
stated, are that pursuant to an advertisement dated 21.5.1998 issued by Janpad Panchayat, Saikheda for recruitment on the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade III, the petitioner has participated in the process of selection. By order dated 27.8.1997, the petitioner was appointed for the academic session 1997-98.
The order of appointment of the petitioner dated 27.8.1997 contains a stipulation that in case selected person fails to report his joining by 8.8.1997, the appointment shall be deemed to have been cancelled. There is no material on record to show that the petitioner in pursuance to the aforesaid order submitted his joining.
The petitioner was appointed for academic session 1997-98. The writ petition has been filed after inordinate delay of 14 years. No explanation has been furnished in the writ petition for the inordinate delay in approaching this Court. Instead of furnishing an explanation, the petitioner in para-4 of the writ petition has stated that there is no delay in filing the writ petition. The order of appointment of the petitioner has come to an end by efflux of time. For the aforementioned reasons, no relief can be granted to the petitioner.
Accordingly, the writ petition fails and is dismissed.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RC Writ Petition No.21904/2012 27.02.2013 Mr. S.S. Chouhan, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Mr. Rajesh Tiwari, learned Government Advocate for the respondents.
Heard.
In this writ petition, the petitioner, who is posted as Lecturer in Government Excellence HSS Kusmi, District Sidhi has been transferred to Birsa, District Balaghat.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order of transfer has been passed during the period of ban in violation of transfer policy. It is further submitted that the petitioner was relieved exparte even before he was served with order of transfer and thereafter by an order dated 12.12.2012, the petitioner was placed under suspension for non-compliance of order of transfer. It is also submitted that after the petitioner was suspended, he was served with the copy of order of relieving from Government Excellence HSS Kusmi on 13.12.2012 by affixture. It is further submitted that since the order of transfer is passed in violation of transfer policy, therefore the same is liable to be quashed. It is also pointed out that the petitioner has preferred a representation submitted to the Competent Authority contained in Annexure P/7. However, the same has failed to evoke any response.
On the other hand, learned Government Advocate submits that from the affidavit which is filed by the petitioner, it is evident that the petitioner was posted in district-Sidhi in various schools since 1982. The petitioner has neither any fundamental right nor any legal right to remain posted in district- Sidhi. The order of transfer has been passed by taking into account the administrative exigency and the same has neither been passed in violation of statutory provision nor the same suffers from vice of malafide.
I have considered the respective submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner. Admittedly, the petitioner has remained in district-Sidhi in various schools since 1982. The petitioner has neither any fundamental right nor any legal right to remain posted in district- Sidhi. It is well settled in law that transfer is an incidence of service. Which employee should be posted where is a matter for the appropriate authority to decide. Until and unless the transfer is vitiated by malafide or is made in violation of any statutory provisions, the Court cannot interfere with the order of transfer. [See: Union of India and Others v. S.L. Abbas, (1993) 4 SCC 357, State Bank of India Vs. Anjan Sanyal and Others, 2001 (5) SCC 508, Government of Andhra Pradesh Vs. G. Venkata Ratnam, 2008 (9) SCC 345, State of Haryana and Others Vs. Kashmir Singh and Another, 2010 (13) SCC 306]. Similarly in Public Services Tribunal Bar Association v. State of U.P. and another, (2003) 4 SCC 104, once again dealing with the scope of judicial review in the matter of transfer, Supreme Court reiterated that transfer is an incidence of service and normally should not be interfered with by the Court. If any administrative guidelines regarding transfer of an employee are violated, at best the same confers the right on the employee to approach the higher authorities for redressal of their grievance. Transfer made contrary to policy can also not be interfered with. Similar view has been taken in the case of State of U.P. And Others Vs. Gobardhan Lal, 2004 (11) SCC 402.
In case of any violation of transfer policy, an appropriate remedy is to approach the Competent Authority by submitting a representation. Learned counsel for the petitioner, at this stage, submits that the writ petition be disposed of and the petitioner be granted liberty to submit a representation to the Competent Authority and the Competent Authority be directed to consider and decide the same.
I am therefore, inclined to direct that in case, the petitioner submits a representation within a period of 10 days, the same shall be decided by the Competent Authority by a speaking order within a period of one month from the date of receipt of such a representation. Needless to state that against the order of suspension, the petitioner may file an appeal under Rule 23 of Madhya Pradesh Civil Service (Classification, Control & Appeal ) Rule 1966, before the Appellate Authority. In case, the petitioner files an appeal alongwith the applications for condonation of delay and stay, the same shall be dealt with expeditiously by the Appellate Authority.
With the aforesaid directions, the writ petition stands disposed of.
Certified copy as per rules.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RC Writ Petition No.21341/2012 27.02.2013 Mr. M.S. Bhatti, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Mr. Rajesh Tiwari, learned Government Advocate for the respondents prays for and is granted 10 days time to file the return.
Documents filed vide I.A. No.2805/2013 are taken on record.
Accordingly, I.A. No.2805/2013 is allowed. Let the writ petition be listed in the week commencing 11 th March, 2013.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RC.
Writ Petition No.207/201327.02.2013 Learned counsel for the petitioner states that he does not want to file the rejoinder.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RC.
Writ Petition No.22010/201227.02.2013 Mr. M.K. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner. On payment of P.F. by registered post with acknowledgment due within one week, issue notice of this petition to the respondent.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RC.
Writ Petition No.749/201327.02.2013 Mr. Atul Anand Awasthy, learned counsel for the petitioner.
On payment of P.F. by registered post with acknowledgment due within one week, issue notice of this petition to the respondents.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RC.
Writ Petition No.12562/2006 (s) 26.2.2013 Mr. R.K. Samaiya, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Anoop Nair, learned counsel for the respondents.
Arguments heard.
Order dictated, signed & dated separately.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RC.
Writ Petition No.10390/201226.02.2013 As prayed by learned counsel for the petitioner, let the writ petition be listed on 04.03.2013 along with W.P. No.19973/2012 (s).
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RC.
Writ Petition No.19973/201226.02.2013 Mr. V.D.S. Chouhan, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Mr. Vivek Sharma, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondents No.1 to 6.
Mr. V.K. Shukla, learned counsel for the respondent No.7.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he has filed the rejoinder on 26.02.2013. However, the same is not on record.
Office is directed to trace the same and place it on record.
As prayed by learned counsel for the petitioner, let the writ petition be listed on 04.03.2013 for consideration of I.A. No.1181.2013.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RC.
Writ Petition No.8302/201125.02.2013 Mr. Praveen Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Mr. Piyush Dharmadhikari, learned Government Advocate for the respondents prays for adjournment in order to enable him to seek instructions in the light of I.A. No.1210/2013 and to file reply, if so advised.
As prayed, let the writ petition be listed in the course of next week.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RC.
Writ Petition No.11316/201125.02.2013 Mr. Suresh Kureel, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. D.K. Tripathi, learned counsel for the respondent No.5 prays for and is granted two weeks' time to file reply.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RC.
Writ Petition No.11705/201125.02.2013 Rejoinder filed vide I.A. No.7871/2012 is taken on record.
Accordingly, I.A. No.7871/2012 is allowed. Heard on I.A. No.956/2013, an application for urgent hearing.
As agreed to by learned counsel for the parties, let the writ petition be listed on 18th March, 2013 for final disposal at motion stage.
Accordingly, I.A. No.956/2013 is allowed.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RC.
Writ Petition No.17856/201125.02.2013 Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Mr. Narendra Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent No.8.
Learned counsel for the respondent No.8 has supplied a copy of return to learned counsel for the petitioner today.
The return filed on behalf for respondent No.8 is not on record. Office is directed to trace it and place it on record.
Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for adjournment in order to enable him to go through the return and to file the rejoinder, if so advised.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RC.
Writ Petition No.18262/201125.02.2013 Parties through their counsel. I.A. No.13236/2012 be listed for consideration in the month of March, 2013.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RC.
Writ Petition No.915/201225.02.2013 Parties through their counsel. Rejoinder filed vide I.A. No.347/2013 is taken on record.
Accordingly I.A. No.347/2013 is allowed. Heard on I.A. No.2080/2013.
Documents annexed with the application are also taken on record.
Accordingly, I.A. No.2080/2013 is allowed. As agreed to by learned counsel for the parties, let the writ petition be listed for final disposal at the motion stage on 18th March, 2013.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RC.
Writ Petition No.4158/201225.02.2013 Mr. Rajesh Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Mr. Piyush Dharmadhikari, learned Government Advocate for the respondents prays for and is granted three weeks' time to file the return.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RC.
Writ Petition No.4749/201225.02.2013 Mr. D.K. Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Piyush Dharmadhikari, learned Government Advocate for the respondents.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the controversy involved in the instant writ petition is squarely covered by the judgment of this Court in the case of Pramod Kumar Gupta Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2011 (1) MPLJ 666.
Learned Government Advocate prays for and is granted three weeks' time to file the return.
Let the writ petition be immediately listed after three weeks.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RC.
Writ Petition No.5248/201225.02.2013 Rejoinder filed vide I.A. No.684/2013 is taken on record.
Accordingly, I.A. No.684/2013 is allowed. Mr. Anuj Agrawal, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 states that he does not want to file an additional return.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he has filed an application for urgent hearing in motion stage.
Let the aforesaid application be listed for consideration in the month of April, 2013.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RC.
Writ Petition No.7558/201225.02.2013 Mr. Tapan Bathre, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Piyush Dharmadhikari, learned Government Advocate for the respondent No.1.
Mr. Rahul Diwakar, learned counsel for the respondents No.2 to 6.
Rejoinder filed vide I.A. No.1104/2013 is taken on record.
Accordingly, I.A. No.1104/2013 is allowed. Documents filed vide I.A. No.1871/2013 is taken on record.
Accordingly, I.A. No.1871/2013 is allowed. As prayed by learned counsel for the petitioner, let the writ petition be listed in the next week.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RC.
Writ Petition No.8535/201225.02.2013 Learned counsel for the petitioners prays for and is granted two weeks' time to file the rejoinder.
Interim order dated 14.6.2012 shall continue till next date of hearing.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RC.
Writ Petition No.8940/201225.02.2013 Mr. Mukesh Kumar Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Mr. Swapnil Ganguly, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondents once again prays for adjournment in order to enable him to file reply.
The aforesaid prayer is opposed by learned counsel for the petitioner.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that thrice i.e. on 24.8.2012,19.11.2012 and 30.01.2013 time was granted to the respondents.
However, in the interest of justice, three weeks' further time is granted to the respondents to file the return.
Let the writ petition be listed immediately after three weeks.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RC.
Writ Petition No.2563/201325.02.2013 Mr. K.P. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Rajesh Tiwari, learned Government Advocate for the respondents No.1 and 2.
Heard.
In this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the validity of order dated 07.02.2013, by which the petitioner has been placed under suspension.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the allegation, on which the order of suspension has been passed is unreasonable, as the benefit of annual increment was granted to him under the order passed by the General Manager. It is further submitted that prior to issuance of order of suspension, the petitioner was transferred thrice. It is urged that the petitioner has been placed under suspension with malafide intention.
Admittedly, against the order of suspension, the appeal lies before the Deputy Registrar. The contentions which have been raised by the petitioner before this Court can very well be examined by the Deputy Registrar, who is an Appellate Authority.
In view of availability of efficacious alternative, I am no inclined to entertain the writ petition. However, the petitioner is at liberty to file an appeal against the order of suspension, if so advised.
Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. Certified copy as per rules.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RC.
Writ Petition No.2635/201325.02.2013 Mr. Ashok Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Mr. Rajesh Tiwari, learned Government Advocate for the respondents.
Heard.
In this writ petition, the petitioner seeks regularization from the date of initial appointment on the post of Medical Officer in the light of Madhya Pradesh Regularization of Public Health and Family Welfare Medical Cadre Contract Appointment Rules, 2005.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the writ petition be disposed of and the petitioner be granted liberty to submit a representation to the Competent Authority and the Competent Authority be directed to consider and decide the same. On the other hand, learned Government Advocate submits that the representation submitted by the petitioner shall dealt with in accordance with law.
In view of submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and as agreed to by them, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction that in case the petitioner submits a representation within a period of three weeks, the same shall be decided by the Competent Authority in the light of Madhya Pradesh Regularization of Public Health and Family Welfare Medical Cadre Contract Appointment Rules, 2005, by a speaking order, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of such a representation. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.
Certified copy as per rules.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RC.
Writ Petition No.2633/201325.02.2013 Mr. Ashok Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioners. Mr. Rajesh Tiwari, learned Government Advocate for the respondents.
Heard.
In this writ petition, the petitioners seeks regularization from the date of initial appointment in the light of Circular dated 06.09.2008 issued by the State Government.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the writ petition be disposed of and the petitioners be granted liberty to submit the representations to the Competent Authority and the Competent Authority be directed to consider and decide the same. On the other hand, learned Government Advocate submits that the representations submitted by the petitioners shall dealt with in accordance with law.
In view of submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and as agreed to by them, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction that in case the petitioners submits a representation within a period of three weeks, the same shall be decided by the Competent Authority in the light of Circular dated 06.9.2008 issued by the State Government, by a speaking order, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of such a representation. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.
Certified copy as per rules.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RC.
Writ Petition No.2630/201325.02.2013 Mr. Ashok Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Rajesh Tiwari, learned Government Advocate for the respondents.
Heard.
In this writ petition, the petitioner seeks regularization in the light of Circulars issued by the State Government.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the writ petition be disposed of and the petitioner be granted liberty to submit a representation to the Competent Authority and the Competent Authority be directed to consider and decide the same. On the other hand, learned Government Advocate submits that the representation submitted by the petitioner shall dealt with in accordance with law.
In view of submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and as agreed to by them, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction that in case the petitioner submits a representation within a period of three weeks, the same shall be decided by the Competent Authority in the light of Circulars issued by the State Government, by a speaking order, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of such a representation. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.
Certified copy as per rules.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RC.
Writ Petition No.2694/201325.02.2013 Mr. Yash Soni, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Mr. Rajesh Tiwari, learned Government Advocate for the respondents.
With consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard finally.
In this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the validity of order dated 9.12.2012, by which the petitioner has been placed under suspension on the ground that a criminal case under section 498-A of Indian Penal Code and under section 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act has been registered against him.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that subsequently the petitioner had challenged the initiation of criminal proceeding before this Court in a petition under section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure. The aforesaid petition has been entertained by a Bench of this Court and the proceedings instituted have been stayed. It is also submitted that the petitioner has preferred an application for revocation of suspension, which is pending before the Competent Authority. It is further submitted that the writ petition be disposed of with a direction to the Competent Authority to consider and decide the application for revocation of suspension submitted by the petitioner. On the other hand, learned Government Advocate submits that suitable action shall be taken on the application for revocation of suspension submitted by the petitioner.
In view of submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and as agreed to by them, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the Competent Authority to decide the application for revocation of suspension pending before it, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order passed today, by a speaking order. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.
Certified copy as per rules.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RC.
Writ Petition No.2705/201325.02.2013 Mr. Manoj Kushwaha, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Heard on the question of admission as well as interim relief.
The petition is admitted for hearing. On payment of P.F. by registered post acknowledgment due within one week, issue notice of the writ petition to the respondents.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is working on the post of Mini Aganwadi Worker and therefore, she be permitted to continue on the said post.
I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner. The respondent No.5 was appointed on the post of Mini Aganwadi Worker on 27.12.2012. Against the said order of appointment, petitioner filed an appeal before the Collector which was dismissed vide order dated 4.2.2013. Being aggrieved by the order of Collector, the petitioner has preferred an appeal before the Commissioner and the application for stay has already been rejected vide order dated 6.2.2013.
For the aforementioned reasons, no case for grant of ad-interim relief is made out. The prayer for ad-interim relief is rejected.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RC.
Writ Petition No.2726/201325.02.2013 Mr. Navneet Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the matter is to be argued by Mr. A.K. Shukla, Advocate, who is out of station.
As prayed, let the writ petition be listed after one week.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RC.
Writ Petition No.2727/201325.02.2013 Mr. A.K. Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner.
As prayed, let the writ petition be listed after one week.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RC.
Writ Petition No.2736/201325.02.2013 Mr. Pratyush Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Heard.
In this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the validity of order dated 13.02.2013, by which the petitioner has been transferred from Bhopal to Regional Center, Rewa.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is no vacant post of Computer Operator at Regional Center, Rewa. It is also submitted that nobody has been posted on the place of the petitioner. It is further submitted that with regard to his grievance, the petitioner has submitted a representation contained in Annexure P/3 to the Competent Authority and the Competent Authority be directed to decide the representation submitted by the petitioner expeditiously.
Taking into account the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and in the facts of the case, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the Competent Authority to decide the representation submitted by the petitioner expeditiously preferably within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order passed today, by a speaking order. Taking into account the fact that nobody has been posted in place of the petitioner, it is directed that till the representation submitted by the petitioner is decided, the petitioner shall be allowed to continue at Bhopal. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.
Certified copy as per rules.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RC.
Writ Petition No.2737/201325.02.2013 Mr. A.K. Rawat, learned counsel for the petitioner. On payment of P.F. by registered post with acknowledgment due within one week, issue notice of this petition to the respondents.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RC.
Writ Petition No. 22.02.2013 Mr. -----------, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. ______, learned Government Advocate for the respondents.
Heard.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the writ petition be disposed of and the petitioner be granted liberty to submit a representation to the Competent Authority and the Competent Authority be directed to consider and decide the same.
On the other hand, learned ___________ submits that the representation submitted by the petitioner shall be dealt with in accordance with law.
In view of submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and as agreed to by them, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction that in case the petitioner submits a representation within a period of _____, the same shall be decided by the Competent Authority by a speaking order within a period of _____ days from the date of receipt of such a representation. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.
Certified copy as per rules.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RC.
Writ Petition No.2581/201322.02.2013 Mr. N.S. Ruprah, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Mr. Vivek Sharma, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondents.
Heard.
In this writ petition, the petitioner has assailed the validity of order dated 12.02.2013, by which the petitioner who is a regular employee and is posted as driver is sought to be transferred to Sub-Division Lateri, District Vidisha to work as a probationer for a period of two years.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a regular employee and is posted in the office of Collector at Mandla. It is further submitted that the status of the petitioner as a regular employee has been duly recognised by an order dated 28.02.2011 passed in writ petition No.3509/2009. However, despite the aforesaid order, the impugned order of transfer has been passed by which petitioner is being transferred as probationer for a period of two years.
Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that with regard to his grievance the petitioner be permitted to submit a representation to the Competent Authority and the Competent Authority be directed to consider the representation submitted by the petitioner.
On the other hand, learned Panel Lawyer submits that if such a representation is submitted, the same shall be dealt with in accordance with law.
In view of submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and in the facts of the case, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction that in case, the petitioner submits a representation with regard to his grievance to the Competent Authority within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order passed today, the Competent Authority shall decide the representation submitted by the petitioner, by a speaking order within a period of two months from the date of receipt of such representation. It is made clear that this court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. Till the representation submitted by the petitioner is decided, the petitioner shall be allowed to work in the office of Collector, Mandla.
Certified copy as per rules.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RC.
Writ Petition No.2592/201322.02.2013 Mr. D.K. Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Mr. Rajesh Tiwari, learned Government Advocate for the respondents.
Heard.
In this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the validity of order dated 26.12.2012, by which he has been placed under suspension. The petitioner also prayed for quashment of charge-sheet dated 18.1.2013.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was posted as Forest Guard in Beat Darodi, Range Vijayraghavgarh, Forest Division Katni. It is further submitted that a tiger died in an area which is situate adjacent to the area, of which the petitioner is Incharge. However, with a malafide intention, the respondent No.3 has placed the petitioner under suspension. It is also submitted that before issuing order of suspension, no enquiry has been held to find as to the involvement of the petitioner in the incident. It is further submitted that though the petitioner has been served the charge- sheet dated 18.1.2013 however, the same does not contain imputation of charges, list of witnesses and documents annexed with the charge-sheet.
On the other hand, learned Government Advocate submitted that against the order of suspension, an appeal lies under Rule 23 of Madhya Pradesh Civil Service (Classification, Control & Appeal ) Rule 1966, before the Appellate Authority and the imputation of charges, list of witnesses and documents annexed with charge-sheet will be supplied to the petitioner before proceeding further in the departmental enquiry.
Admittedly, against the order of suspension, an appeal lies under Rule 23 of Madhya Pradesh Civil Service (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rule 1966. I have carefully gone through the averments made in the writ petition. Except in ground 6.1, no allegations of malafide have been made by the petitioner. Even the allegations with regard to malafides made in para 6.1 are vague and general in nature. It is trite law that allegations of malafides has to be properly pleaded and proved. Burden of establishing malafides is very heavy on the person who alleges it.[ See :
Indian Railway Construction Co. Ltd. Vs. Ajay Kumar, (2003) 4 SCC 579].
The petitioner has failed to discharge the aforesaid burden. Besides, in view of availability of efficacious remedy, I am not inclined to interfere with the order of suspension. As stated by learned Government Advocate imputation of charges, list of witnesses and documents annexed with charge-sheet shall be supplied to the petitioner within a period of three weeks from today before taking any further proceeding in the departmental enquiry. It is further directed that in case the petitioner prefers an appeal against the order of suspension dated 26.12.2012 before the Appellate Authority within a period of 10 days from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order passed today, the same shall be dealt with by the Appellate Authority in accordance with law, expeditiously preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of filing of such an appeal, by a speaking order.
With the aforesaid directions, the writ petition stands disposed of.
Certified copy as per rules.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RC.Writ Petition No.2588/2013
22.02.2013 Mr. D.K. Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Mr. Rajesh Tiwari, learned Government Advocate for the respondents.
Heard.
In this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the validity of order dated 26.12.2012, by which he has been placed under suspension. The petitioner also prayed for quashment of charge-sheet dated 18.1.2013.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was posted as Forest Guard in Beat Darodi, Range Vijayraghavgarh, Forest Division Katni. It is further submitted that a tiger died in an area which is situate adjacent to the area, of which the petitioner is Incharge. However, with a malafide intention, the respondent No.3 has placed the petitioner under suspension. It is also submitted that before issuing order of suspension, no enquiry has been held to find as to the involvement of the petitioner in the incident. It is further submitted that though the petitioner has been served the charge- sheet dated 18.1.2013 however, the same does not contain imputation of charges, list of witnesses and documents annexed with the charge-sheet.
On the other hand, learned Government Advocate submitted that against the order of suspension, an appeal lies under Rule 23 of Madhya Pradesh Civil Service (Classification, Control & Appeal ) Rule 1966, before the Appellate Authority and the imputation of charges, list of witnesses and documents annexed with charge-sheet will be supplied to the petitioner before proceeding further in the departmental enquiry.
Admittedly, against the order of suspension, an appeal lies under Rule 23 of Madhya Pradesh Civil Service (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rule 1966. I have carefully gone through the averments made in the writ petition. Except in ground 6.1, no allegations of malafide have been made by the petitioner. Even the allegations with regard to malafides made in para 6.1 are vague and general in nature. It is trite law that allegations of malafides has to be properly pleaded and proved. Burden of establishing malafides is very heavy on the person who alleges it.[ See :
Indian Railway Construction Co. Ltd. Vs. Ajay Kumar, (2003) 4 SCC 579].
The petitioner has failed to discharge the aforesaid burden. Besides, in view of availability of efficacious remedy, I am not inclined to interfere with the order of suspension. As stated by learned Government Advocate imputation of charges, list of witnesses and documents annexed with charge-sheet shall be supplied to the petitioner within a period of three weeks from today before taking any further proceeding in the departmental enquiry. It is further directed that in case the petitioner prefers an appeal against the order of suspension dated 26.12.2012 before the Appellate Authority within a period of 10 days from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order passed today, the same shall be dealt with by the Appellate Authority in accordance with law, expeditiously preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of filing of such an appeal, by a speaking order.
With the aforesaid directions, the writ petition stands disposed of.
Certified copy as per rules.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RC.Writ Petition No.2580/2013
22.02.2013 Mr. Dinesh Upadhyay, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Mr. Rajesh Tiwari, learned Government Advocate for the respondents.
Heard.
In this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the validity of order dated 28.1.2013, by which the petitioner has been relieved to join at Community Health Centre Palera.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is a multi-purpose worker and was posted at Sub-Health Centre, Lakhaura. By the order dated 07.06.2011, petitioner was transferred to Community Health Centre Palera. The petitioner thereupon submitted a representation. Thereupon on the Competent Authority directed not to relieve the petitioner. As a result of which, the petitioner continued to serve at Sub-Health Centre, Lakhaura. However, without deciding the representation submitted by the petitioner, the impugned order dated 28.1.2013 has been issued by which the petitioner is sought to be relieved.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that Competent Authority be directed to decide the representation submitted by the petitioner within a fixed time limit. On the other hand, learned Government Advocate fairly submits that suitable action shall be taken on the representation submitted by the petitioner, in accordance with law.
In view of submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and in the facts of the case, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the Competent Authority to decide the representation expeditiously preferably within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order passed today, by a speaking order. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. Till the representation submitted by the petitioner is decided, he shall be allowed to work at his present place of post i.e. Sub-Health Centre, Lakhaura.
Certified copy as per rules.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RC.
Writ Petition No.2600/201322.02.2013 Mr. Rajendra Shrivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Mr. Vivek Sharma, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondents.
Heard.
In this writ petition, the petitioner inter-alia seeks quashment of order dated 16.10.2012.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in pursuance of order of Commissioner dated 23.06.2011, the Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Niwari cancelled the appointment of the petitioner on the post of Village Employment Assistant and issued appointment in the name of respondent No.5, who has not even submitted an application initially. The petitioner has preferred an objection in this regard. However, by ignoring the objection preferred by the petitioner by an order dated 28.9.2012, the respondent No.5 has been appointed on the post of Village Employment Assistant.
Admittedly, in para 5.2 of the scheme of the State Government for recruitment on the post of Village Employment Assistant, an appeal lies before District Programme Co-Ordinator. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he be granted liberty to file an appeal before the District Programme Co-Ordinator and the District Programme Co-Ordinator be directed to decide the appeal expeditiously. On the other hand, learned Panel Lawyer submitted that the appeal Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he be permitted to submit a representation and the Competent Authority be directed to consider and decide the representation submitted by the petitioner. On the other hand, learned Government Advocate submits that in case, the petitioner submits the representation to the Competent Authority, the same shall be dealt with in accordance with law.
In view of submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and in the facts of the case, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction that in case, the petitioner submits a representation within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order passed today to the Competent Authority, the Competent Authority shall consider and decide the representation submitted by the petitioner, by a speaking order expeditiously preferably within a period of two months from the date of receipt of such a representation. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.
Certified copy as per rules.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RC.
Writ Petition No.2626/201321.02.2013 Mr. R.S. Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Piyush Dharmadhikari, learned Government Advocate for the respondents.
Heard on the question of admission as well as interim relief.
On payment of P.F. by registered post with acknowledgment due within one week, issue notice of this petition to the respondents. Notices be made returnable within a period of four weeks.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the notification issued for recruitment on the post of Forest Guard is contrary to Section 4 of M.P. Lok Seva (Anusuchit Jatiyon, Anusuchit Jan Jatiyon aur Anya Pichhade Vargon Ke Liye Arakshan) Adhiniyam, 1994. It is further submitted that an application has been submitted by the petitioner for appearing in the aforesaid examination.
In view of submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and in the facts of the case, it is directed that the petitioner shall be permitted to appear in the examination, which is scheduled to be held on 3.3.2013 for recruitment on the post of Forest Guard. It is made clear that the appearance of the petitioner in the examination would be provisional and his result shall not be declared without leave of this Court.
Certified copy as per rules.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RC.
Writ Petition No.2426/2013 (simple representation) 20.02.2013 Mr. Deepak Okhade, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Mr. Rajesh Tiwari, learned Government Advocate for the respondents.
With consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard finally.
Heard.
In this writ petition, the petitioner inter-alia seeks a direction to the respondents to appoint the petitioner on the post of Village Employment Assistant.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was selected for the post of Village Employment Assistant in respect of Gram Panchayat Kuvarpur vide resolution dated 22.7.2012 and 2.10.2012. However, the order of appointment has not been issued.
Learned counsel for the petitioner at the out set submitted that he has submitted a representation with regard to his grievance contained in Annexure P/9 to the Competent Authority and the Competent Authority be directed to decide the representation within a time bound period. On the other hand, learned Government Advocate submits that the representation submitted by the petitioner shall be dealt with in accordance with law.
In view of submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and in the facts of the case, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction that the representation submitted by the petitioner shall be decided by the Competent Authority expeditiously preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order passed today, by a speaking order. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.
Certified copy as per rules.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RC.
Writ Petition No.21547/201220.02.2013 Mr. A.K. Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Mr. Rajesh Tiwari, learned Government Advocate for the respondents.
With consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard finally.
Heard.
In this writ petition, the petitioner inter-alia seeks quashment of order dated 29.9.2011 as well as direction to the respondents to accord the benefit of scheme of notional increment to the petitioner and for fixing the pension and gratuity with all the consequential benefits accordingly.
Learned counsel for the petitioner at the out set submitted that he has submitted a representation with regard to his grievance contained in Annexure P/14 to the Competent Authority and the Competent Authority be directed to decide the representation submitted by the petitioner in the light of circular dated 12.9.2002 issued by the Finance Department, Government of M.P. On the other hand, learned Government Advocate submits that the representation submitted by the petitioner shall be dealt with in accordance with law.
In view of submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and in the facts of the case, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction that the representation submitted by the petitioner shall be decided by the Competent Authority by a speaking order in the light circular dated 12.9.2002 issued by the Finance Department, Government of M.P., expeditiously preferably within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order passed today. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.
Certified copy as per rules.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RC.
Writ Petition No.16155/201220.02.2013 Mr. Rajneesh Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Mr. Greeshm Jain, learned counsel for the respondents.
Learned counsel for the respondents prays for and is granted six weeks' time to file the return.
Heard on the question of interim relief. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the penalty of reduction of pay by one stage in his current pay scale for a period of one year without cumulative effect has been imposed on the petitioner. It is further submitted that the meeting of D.P.C. is to be held shortly and the case of the petitioner may not be considered in the meeting of Departmental Promotion Committee.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents fairly submits that the case of the petitioner shall be considered, being provided that the petitioner is in the zone of consideration and is otherwise eligible.
I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and in the facts of the case, it is directed that, if any meeting of Departmental Promotion Committee is held for considering the cases of eligible candidates promotion for the post of Chief Engineer, the case of the petitioner shall be considered by the Departmental Promotion Committee subject to the condition that the petitioner is in the zone of consideration. However, the recommendation of the DPC shall be kept in sealed cover.
Certified copy as per rules.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RC.
Writ Petition No.212/201320.02.2013 Mr. K.N. Pethia, learned counsel for the petitioner. On payment of P.F. by registered post with acknowledgment due within one week, issue notice of this petition to the respondent. Notice be made returnable within a period of four weeks.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RC.
Writ Petition No.6174/201120.02.2013 Let return on behalf of the respondents be filed within a period of three weeks and the writ petition be listed along with W.P. No.212/2013.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RC Writ Petition No.11585/2012 20.02.2013 Mr. Ashish Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner. Heard on I.A. No.2155/2013, an application for permission to withdraw the petition.
For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed.
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RC Writ Petition No.2437/2007 20.02.2013 As prayed by learned counsel for the petitioner, let the writ petition be listed after two weeks.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RC Writ Petition No.13985/2012 20.02.2013 Learned counsel for the respondents prays for and is granted four weeks' time to file reply.
Interim order dated 3.9.2012 shall continue till next date of hearing.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RC Writ Petition No.21193/2012 20.02.2013 Parties through their counsel. Let the writ petition be listed before appropriate Bench as per roster.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RC Writ Petition No.646/2004 20.02.2013 Mr. R.C. Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Rajesh Tiwari, learned Government Advocate for the respondents.
Learned Government Advocate for the respondents prays for and is granted three weeks' further time to produce the DPC record.
It is made clear that in case, the DPC record is not produced by next date of hearing, this Court may consider directing for personal appearance of Officer In-charge of the case.
As prayed, let the writ petition be listed after three weeks.
Let a copy of this order be supplied to Mr. Rajesh Tiwari, learned Government Advocate for the respondents.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RC Writ Petition No.3275/2004 20.02.2013 Let the return on behalf of the respondent No.5 be filed within a period of three weeks.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RC.
Writ Petition No.2409/201320.02.2013 As prayed, let the writ petition be listed on 22nd February, 2013.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RC.
Writ Petition No.2467/201320.02.2013 Mr. S.D. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Mr. Rajesh Tiwari, learned Government Advocate for the respondents.
Heard.
In this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the validity of order dated 07.02.2013 passed by the Additional Commissioner.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was appointment as an Aaganwadi Assistant. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the respondent No.4 has filed an appeal before the Collector. The Collector vide order dated 21.01.2013 remanded the matter to District Level Selection Committee to examine the documents of the candidates afresh and to take action in accordance with law. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has filed an appeal before the Additional Commissioner, which has been dismissed by the order dated 7.2.2013.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is working on the post of Aaganwadi Assistant and the writ petition be disposed of with a direction to respondents to permit the petitioner to continue on the said post till the process as directed by the Collector vide order dated 21.1.2013, which has been undertaken by the District Level Selection Committee is completed. On the other hand, learned Government Advocate submits that the impugned order does not call for any interference by this Court.
I have considered the respective submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. Admittedly, the petitioner was appointed on the posts of Aaganwadi Assistant. The claim of the respondent No.4 for appointment on the post in question is yet to be considered. In the facts of the case, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition with a direction that the petitioner, who is an Aaganwadi Assistant shall be allowed to continue on the said post till the process which has been undertaken by the District Level Selection Committee in pursuance of order dated 21.1.2013 is completed. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.
Certified copy as per rules.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RC.
Writ Petition No.2473/201320.02.2013 Mr. Sanjay Sanyal, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Mr. Rajesh Tiwari, learned Government Advocate for the respondents.
Heard.
In this writ petition, the petitioner inter-alia seeks a direction to the respondents to treat the petitioner as regular incumbent with effect from 9.3.2006 and to pay all consequential benefits as extended to the respondent No.5, who is junior to him.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he be permitted to submit a representation and the Competent Authority be directed to consider and decide the representation submitted by the petitioner. On the other hand, learned Government Advocate submits that in case, the petitioner submits the representation to the Competent Authority, the same shall be dealt with in accordance with law.
In view of submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and in the facts of the case, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction that in case, the petitioner submits a representation within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order passed today to the Competent Authority, the Competent Authority shall consider and decide the representation submitted by the petitioner, by a speaking order expeditiously preferably within a period of two months from the date of receipt of such a representation. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.
Certified copy as per rules.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RC.
Writ Petition No.2150/201320.02.2013 Mr. I.S. Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Mr. Piyush Dharmadhikari, learned Government Advocate for the respondent No.2.
Heard.
In this writ petition, the petitioner is a physically challenged person seeks a direction to the respondent No.2 for appointment to the post of Assistant Grade-III on regular basis.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that notwithstanding the fact that the respondent No.1 has made recommendation to the respondent No.2 for appointment of the petitioner on regular basis. However, no action by the Collector has been taken in this connection. Learned counsel for the petitioner has invited the attention of this Court to Annexures P/1 and P/4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that she be granted time to submit a representation and the Collector be directed to consider and decide the representation submitted by the petitioner. On the other hand, learned Government Advocate submits that in case, the petitioner submits the representation to the Collector, suitable action shall be taken on the representation submitted by the petitioner with regard to her claim for appointment on the post of Assistant Grade-III on regular basis. In view of submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and in the facts of the case, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction that in case, the petitioner submits a representation within a period of 10 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order passed today to the Collector, the Collector shall consider and decide the representation submitted by the petitioner, by a speaking order expeditiously preferably within a period of one month from the date of receipt of such a representation. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.
Certified copy as per rules.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RC.
Writ Petition No.13460/201220.02.2013 Mr. S.R. Tamrakar, learned counsel for the petitioners.
Mr. Piyush Dharmadhikari, learned Government Advocate for the respondents.
With consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard finally.
In this writ petition, the petitioners inter-alia seeks a direction to the respondents for appointment of the petitioners on the post of Medical Officer.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners were selected for the post of Medical Officer on contract basis. However, the appointment orders were not issued to them on the ground that the petitioners did not hold the M.B.B.S. degree. It is further submitted that still the posts of 'Medial Officer' are lying vacant. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that they be granted liberty to submit a representation and the Competent Authority be directed to consider and decide the representation submitted by the petitioners. On the other hand learned Government Advocate submits that in case, the petitioners submit the representation to the Competent Authority, the same shall be dealt with in accordance with law.
In view of submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and in the facts of the case, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction that in case, the petitioners submit representations within a period of 10 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order passed today to the Competent Authority, the Competent Authority shall consider and decide the representations submitted by the petitioners, by taking into account the provisions of Madhya Pradesh Public Health and Family Welfare Medial Cadre Contract Service (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2002, by a speaking order expeditiously preferably within a period of one month from the date of receipt of such a representation. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.
Certified copy as per rules.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RC.
Writ Petition No.12343/201220.02.2013 Dr. Anuvad Shrivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Mr. Piyush Dharmadhikari, learned Government Advocate accepts notice on behalf of respondents No.1 to
4. On payment of P.F. by registered post with acknowledgment due within one week, issue notice of this petition to the respondents No.5 to 7. Notices be made returnable within a period of four weeks.
Let the writ petition be listed immediately thereafter.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RC.
Writ Petition No.6557/201020.02.2013 Parties through their counsel. Vide order dated 20.12.2012, I.A. No.13176/2012 has already been allowed. Therefore, no further orders are required to be passed on aforesaid I.A. No.13176/2012.
Learned Government Advocate has supplied a copy of the return to learned counsel for the petitioner today itself.
Learned counsel for the petitioner may go through the return and may file the rejoinder, if so advised.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RC Writ Petition No.2142/2009 20.02.2013 Mr. Manikant Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Mr. K.S. Wadhwa, learned counsel for the respondents No.1 and 2.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this petition has been wrongly listed with W.P. No.6557/2010.
In view of aforesaid statement, let the W.P. No.6557/2010 be de-linked from this petition.
Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for and is granted four weeks time to file the rejoinder.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RC Writ Petition No.2169/2009 20.02.2013 Mr. Amit Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned Government Advocate for the respondents prays for and is granted two weeks' time to file enquiry report.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RC Writ Petition No.2412/2009 20.02.2013 Learned Government Advocate for the respondents prays for and is granted three weeks' time to file enquiry report.
Interim order passed earlier to remain in operation.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RC Writ Petition No.2057/2011 20.02.2013 Parties through their counsel. Mr. Piyush Dharmadhikari, learned Government Advocate prays for and is granted three weeks time to file the return.
Let I.A. No.3680/2012 be listed after three weeks.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RC Writ Petition No.6809/2011 20.02.2013 Rejoinder filed vide I.A. No.15744/2012 is taken on record.
Accordingly, I.A. No.15744/2012 is allowed. Learned counsel for the respondents may go through the rejoinder and may file additional return, if so advised.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RC Writ Petition No.17125/2011 20.02.2013 Documents filed vide I.A. No.15196/2012 are taken on record.
Accordingly, I.A. No.15196/2012 is allowed.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RC Writ Petition No.5116/2009 20.02.2013 Learned counsel for the respondents prays for and is granted two weeks' time to place on record certain documents.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RC Writ Petition No.3688/2010 20.02.2013 Let the order dated 23.8.2012 be complied with within a further period of three weeks.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RC Writ Petition No.4221/2011 20.02.2013 Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for and is granted two weeks' time to file the rejoinder.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RC Writ Petition No.9082/2012 20.02.2013 Mr. Piyush Dharmadhikari, learned Government Advocate for the petitioner.
On 11.7.2012 also a week's time was granted to the petitioner to remove the defect. However, the defect pointed out by the office has not been complied with.
Let the default be made good within a period of two weeks, failing which the petition shall be dismissed automatically without further reference to the Bench.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RC Writ Petition No.12624/2012 20.02.2013 Learned Government Advocate submits that the order dated 20.12.2012 shall be complied with positively within a period of two weeks. Learned Government Advocate prays for two weeks' further time to submit a compliance report with regard to Section 17(b) of Industrial Dispute Act.
Let the writ petition be listed in the week commencing 18th March, 2013.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RC Writ Petition No.17762/2012 20.02.2013 Mr. Sumant Bhattarcharya, learned counsel for the petitioners.
Learned counsel for the petitioners seeks leave of this Court to withdraw the writ petition.
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RC Writ Petition No.255/2013 20.2.2013 Mr. Ajeet Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner. Heard on I.A. No.881/2013, an application for amendment.
Taking into account the nature of proposed amendment and for the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed.
Let necessary amendment be carried out within a period of two days.
As prayed, let the writ petition be listed in the course of next week.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RC.
M.C.C. No.180/201320.02.2013 Mrs. Amrit Ruprah, learned counsel for the applicant. Mr. Vivek Sharma, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondents No.1 to 4.
Heard.
This application has been filed for modification of order dated 31.1.2013.
Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the order impugned in the W.P. No.803/2003 is dated 28.12.2002. However, due to typographical error it has been typed as 18.12.2012.
The aforesaid statement is not disputed by learned Panel Lawyer.
Accordingly, it is directed that the date of impugned order shall be read as 28.12.2002 instead of 18.12.2012.
This order shall be read in conjunction with order dated 31.1.2013. Accordingly, the M.C.C. stands disposed of.
Certified copy as per rules.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RC Writ Petition No.14706/2007 20.02.2013 Parties through their counsel. Heard on I.A. No.10648/2007, an application for taking documents on record.
Documents filed vide aforesaid application are taken record. I.A. No.10648/2007 is allowed. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he has filed the rejoinder today.
However, the same is not on record. Office is directed to trace the same and place it on record.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RC Writ Petition No.17445/2007 20.2.2013 Parties through their counsel. Heard on I.A. No.4160/2009, an application for amendment.
Taking into account the nature of proposed amendment and for the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed.
Let necessary amendment be carried out within a period of one week.
Learned counsel for the respondents may file an additional reply, if so advised.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RC.
Writ Petition No.8861/200520.02.2013 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the matter is likely to be settled amicably.
As prayed, let the writ petition be listed after four weeks.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RC.
Writ Petition No.2305/201320.02.2013 Mr. Shailesh Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Mr. Piyush Dharmadhikari, learned Government Advocate for the respondents.
Heard.
In this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the validity of order dated 21.01.2013, by which his services have been terminated from the post of Team Leader without affording an opportunity of hearing.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that an enquiry was conducted behind the back of the petitioner and on the basis of the said enquiry, the impugned order of termination of services of the petitioner has been passed. It is further submitted that no opportunity of hearing was provided to the petitioner. It is also submitted with regard to his grievance, the petitioner has submitted a representation contained in Annexure P/10. It is further submitted that the writ petition be disposed of with a direction to the Competent Authority to consider and decide the representation submitted by the petitioner.
On the other hand, learned Government Advocate, while inviting the attention of this Court to the order dated 21.01.2013 submitted that a show-cause was issued to the petitioner. However, the petitioner failed to file any reply within a stipulated time limit and the explanation furnished by the petitioner was considered while passing the impugned order. Be that as it may be, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition with a direction to the Competent Authority to consider and decide the representation submitted by the petitioner expeditiously preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of production of certified copy of the order passed today in light of law laid by this Court in cases of Rakesh Chandra Kein Vs. State of M.P. & Ors., I.L.R. [2010] M.P., 1107 and Jitendra Vs. State of M.P. and Others, 2008 (4) M.P.L.J., 670, by a speaking order. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. It will be open for the Competent Authority to afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
Certified copy as per rules.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RC.
Writ Petition No.2427/201320.02.2013 Mr. Shailesh Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Heard on the question of admission as well as interim relief.
On payment of P.F. by registered post with acknowledgment due within three days, issue notice of this petition to the respondents. Notices be made returnable within a period of four weeks.
In the meanwhile, it is directed that if any appointment is made to the post of contract School Teacher Grade-III, the same shall be subject to the result of the writ petition.
Certified copy as per rules.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RC.
Writ Petition No.2424/201320.02.2013 Mr. Shailesh Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Heard on the question of admission as well as interim relief.
On payment of P.F. by registered post with acknowledgment due within three days, issue notice of this petition to the respondents. Notices be made returnable within a period of four weeks.
In the meanwhile, it is directed that if any appointment is made to the post of contract School Teacher Grade-III, the same shall be subject to the result of the writ petition.
Let the petition be listed alongwith W.P. No.2427/2013 for analogous hearing.
Certified copy as per rules.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RC.
Writ Petition No.21551/201218.02.2013 Mr. Shailendra Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Mr. Vivek Sharma, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondents No.1 to 5.
Mr. Mrigendra Singh, learned counsel for the respondent No.6.
Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for and is granted two weeks time to file the rejoinder.
Learned Panel Lawyer also prays for and is granted two weeks' time to file the return.
Heard on I.A. No.1577/2013, an application for vacating the order of stay.
After hearing the arguments at length and in view of rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, I deem it appropriate to deal with the aforesaid application after the reply is filed on behalf of respondents No.1 to 5.
Let I.A. No.1577/2013 be listed immediately after two weeks.
Interim order dated 21.12.2012 shall continue till next date of hearing.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RC.
Writ Petition No.15427/201219.02.2013 Mr. V.K. Shukla, Advocate with Mr. M.S. Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Mr. Swapnil Ganguly, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondents.
Heard.
In this writ petition, the petitioner inter-alia seeks a direction to the respondents to remove the entry of 'suspension' mentioned in the record sent by the respondents No.3 and 4 to the respondents No.1, 2 and 5 and not to treat him under suspension in view of order dated 07.09.2012.
At the out set, when the matter was taken up for hearing, learned Panel Lawyer submitted that the petitioner has already been promoted to the posts of Deputy Director by order dated 15.2.2013.
In view of aforesaid statement, the writ petition has been rendered infructuous. Accordingly, the same is dismissed.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RC.
Writ Petition No.18665/201218.02.2013 Mr. R.B. Patel, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Rajesh Tiwari, learned Government Advocate for the respondents.
Heard.
Learned counsel for the parties jointly submits that the issue involved in the instant writ petition is squarely covered by an order dated 07.02.2011 passed by this Court in W.P. No.2292/2011.
In view of submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and for the reasons assigned in the said order, the writ petition is disposed of on same terms and with similar directions as contained in order dated 07.02.2011 passed in W.P. No.2292/2011.
Certified copy as per rules.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RC.
Writ Petition No.17635/201218.02.2013 Mr. Rajnish Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Mr. Piyush Dharmadhikari, learned Government Advocate for the respondents.
Heard.
Learned counsel for the parties jointly submits that the issue involved in the instant writ petition is squarely covered by an order dated 13.12.2011 passed by this Court in W.P. No.3745/2005.
In view of submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and for the reasons assigned in the said order, the writ petition is disposed of on same terms and with similar directions as contained in order dated 13.12.2011 passed in W.P. No.3745/2005.
Certified copy as per rules.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RC Writ Petition No.20840/2012 18.02.2013 Parties through their counsel. A Bench of this Court vide order dated 14.12.2012 had directed the respondents to decide the representation of the petitioner in accordance with the order dated 14.8.2012 and to take consequential action as per directions issued on 14.8.2012. However, till today the aforesaid order has not been complied with.
Mr. Piyush Dharmadhikari, learned Government Advocate submits that the Competent Authority shall comply with the order dated 14.12.2012 by the next date of hearing and the compliance report shall be submitted.
In view of aforesaid statement, let the writ petition be listed on 27th February, 2013.
Let a copy of this order be supplied to Mr. Piyush Dharmadhikari, learned Government Advocate during course of the day.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RC Writ Petition No.8866/2012 18.02.2013 Parties through their counsel. Despite opportunities being granted on 18.1.2013 and 4.2.2013, return has not been filed. By way of last indulgence 10 days' time is granted to learned Government Advocate to file return.
It is made clear that in case, return is not filed by next date of hearing, this Court may consider directing for personal appearance of Officer In-charge of the case.
As prayed, let the writ petition be listed on 28.2.2013.
Let a copy of this order be supplied to Mr. Piyush Dharmadhikari, learned Government Advocate for the respondents.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RC Writ Petition No.9787/2012 18.02.2013 Mr. Piyush Dharmadhikari, learned Government Advocate for the respondents 1 to 3, 5 and 6 prays for and is granted three weeks' time to file reply.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RC Writ Petition No.12687/2012 18.02.2013 Learned Government Advocate prays for and is granted three weeks' time to file reply.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RC Writ Petition No.12970/2012 18.02.2013 Mr. K.S. Wadhwa, learned counsel for the respondent prays for adjournment in order to enable him to comply with the order dated 16.8.2012.
As prayed, let the writ petition be listed on 25th February, 2013.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RC Writ Petition No.14015/2012 18.02.2013 Mr. Piyush Dharmadhikari, learned Government Advocate prays for and is granted three weeks' further time to file return.
Interim relief 11.12.2012 shall continue till next date of hearing.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RC Writ Petition No.14665/2012 18.02.2013 Learned Government Advocate prays for and is granted two weeks' time to file return.
Let the writ petition be listed in the week commencing 4th March, 2013.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RC Writ Petition No.16732/2012 18.02.2013 Mr. Jitendra Shrivastava, learned counsel for the respondents No.1 and 2 prays for and is granted two weeks' time to file return.
Let the writ petition be listed in the week commencing 11th March, 2013.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RC Writ Petition No.16776/2012 18.02.2013 Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for and is granted two weeks' time to file rejoinder as well as reply to I.A. No.2381/2013.
As prayed, let the writ petition be listed for consideration of I.A. No.2381/2013 in the week commencing 11th March, 2013.
Interim order dated 3/10/2012 shall continue till next date of hearing.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RC Writ Petition No.17744/2012 18.02.2013 Mr. P.C. Chandak, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Office report indicates that the service of notice to respondent No. 7 is awaited.
In view of aforesaid, learned counsel for the petitioner undertakes to pay fresh P.F. for the service of notice to respondent No.7.
On payment of P.F. by registered post acknowledgment due within a period of three days, issue notice to the respondent No.7.
Notice be made returnable within a period of four weeks.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RC Writ Petition No.18500/2012 18.02.2013 Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for and is granted three weeks' time to file rejoinder.
Let the writ petition be listed in the week commencing 18th March, 2013.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RC Writ Petition No.19973/2012 18.02.2013 Mr. V.D.S. Chouhan, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Mr. Piyush Dharmadhikari, learned Government Advocate for the respondents.
Mr. V.K. Shukla, learned counsel for the respondent No.7.
Learned counsel for the respondent No.7, while inviting the attention of this Court has submitted that the provisions of Madhya Pradesh Non Gazetted Class III Education Service (Non Collegiate Services) Recruitment and Promotion Rules, 1973, has been amended with effect from 3rd August, 2012.
In view of aforesaid statement, learned Government Advocate prays for adjournment in order to enable him to examine aforesaid aspect.
As prayed, let the writ petition be listed on 25th February, 2013.
Interim order dated 30.11.2012 shall continue till next date of hearing.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RC Writ Petition No.7695/2012 18.02.2013 Mr. K.P. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Rajesh Tiwari, learned Government Advocate for the respondents.
Heard.
In this writ petition, the petitioner inter-alia seeks a direction to the respondents to regularise the services of the petitioner and to grant him regular pay scale with effect from the date of the order of the Labour Court and to pay the arrears along with interest at the rate of 9% interest.
Learned counsel for the parties submitted that the controversy involved in the instant writ petition is squarely covered by an order dated 8.2.2011 passed a Bench of this Court in W.P. (s) No.140/2005.
In view of submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and for the reasons stated in the order dated 08.2.2011 passed in W.P. (s) No.140/2005, the writ petition is disposed of on same terms and with similar directions.
Certified copy as per rules.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RC Writ Petition No.13017/2012 18.02.2013 Mr. V.K. Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Rajesh Tiwari, learned Government Advocate for the respondents.
With consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard finally.
In this writ petition, the petitioner, who is posted as Assistant Grade-III has challenged the validity of order 13.7.2012, by which he has been transferred from Sirmour to District- Singrauli.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is a victim of frequent transfers. In the year 2010, 2011 and again in 2012 by the impugned order, the petitioner was transferred. On the other hand, learned Government Advocate submits that the order of transfer has been passed by taking into account the administrative exigency and the order of transfer has neither been passed in violation of statutory provision nor the same suffers from vice of malafide.
I have considered the submissions made on both sides. A Bench of this Court while entertaining the writ petition has passed interim order dated 23.08.2012 and had stayed the operation and effect of order of transfer dated 13.7.2012. The aforesaid order is still in force. Thus, in the considered opinion of this Court, the order of transfer has lost its efficacy on account of efflux of time. Accordingly, the same is quashed. Needless to state that the respondent would be at liberty to pass afresh order of transfer by taking into account the administrative exigency, if any. It is further clarified that the aforesaid observation does mean that the petitioner has to be transferred necessarily.
Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RC Writ Petition No.15318/2010 18.02.2013 Mr. Manish Verma, learned counsel for the respondents No.2, 3 and 4 submitted that he has supplied a copy of reply to learned counsel for the petitioner today.
Learned counsel for the petitioner may go through the same and may file rejoinder, if so advised.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RC Writ Petition No.16602/2010 18.02.2013 Parties through their counsel. As agreed to by learned counsel for the parties, let the writ petition be listed on 6th March, 2013.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RC Writ Petition No.1715/2011 18.02.2013 Mr. Swapnil Ganguly, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the draft return has been sent for approval. He therefore, prays for and is granted four weeks' time to file return.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RC Writ Petition No.8707/2011 18.02.2013 Mrs. Shobha Menon, learned Senior Counsel with Ms. Surbhi Ahirkar, learned counsel for the petitioners.
Mr. Swapnil Ganguly, learned Panel Lawyer states that he does not want to file the reply.
As agreed to by learned counsel for the parties, let the writ petition be listed on 27th February, 2013 for final disposal at motion stage.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RC Writ Petition No.11762/2011 18.02.2013 Mr. A. Usmani, learned counsel for the petitioner. Heard on the question of admission. On payment of process fees by registered post acknowledgment due within a period of one week, issue notice of the petition to the respondent.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RC Writ Petition No.9485/2010 18.2.2013 Mr. Manoj Rajak, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Rakesh Jain, learned counsel for the respondents prays for and is granted further three weeks' time to file reply.
As prayed by learned counsel for the petitioner, let the writ petition be listed along with W.P. No.9484/2010 for analogous hearing.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RC.
Writ Petition No.16247/201018.2.2013 Mr. Rajas Pohankar, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Let I.A. No.15100/2012, an application for modification of interim order dated 12.10.2012, be listed before a Bench which has passed the order dated 12.10.2012.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RC.
Writ Petition No.648/201018.2.2013 Let the writ petition be listed along with W.P. No.399/2011.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RC.
Writ Petition No.2057/201218.2.2013 Let the writ petition be listed along with W.P. No.399/2011.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RC.
Writ Petition No.399/201118.2.2013 Parties through their counsel. As directed by order dated 06.02.2013, let the writ petition be listed after three weeks.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RC.
Writ Petition No.2100/201118.2.2013 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that rejoinder has already been taken on record by order dated 18.1.2013. Therefore, no further order is required.
Accordingly, I.A. No.14200/2012 is disposed of. Learned counsel for the parties submitted that pleadings in the case are complete.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RC.
Writ Petition No.21675/201118.2.2013 Parties through their counsel. Mr. Rajesh Tiwari, learned Government Advocate prays for and is granted two weeks further time to comply order dated 3.10.2012 and to produce the record of enquiry, which was held against the petitioner.
As prayed, let the writ petition be listed in the week commencing 4th March, 2013.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RC.
Writ Petition No.5263/201218.2.2013 Parties through their counsel. Heard on I.A. No.5070/2012, an application for amendment.
Taking into account the nature of proposed amendment and for the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed.
Let necessary amendment be carried out within a period of one week.
Learned counsel for the petitioner undertakes to supply copy of writ petition to Mr. R.S. Siddiqui, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India within a period of one week.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RC.
Writ Petition No.15843/201218.2.2013 Mr. Tarbez Sheikh, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 prays for and is granted three weeks' time to file reply.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RC.
Writ Petition No.17811/201218.2.2013 Mr. Manish Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Mr. Rajesh Tiwari, learned Government Advocate for the respondent No.1.
Mr. Aditya Adhikari, learned counsel for the respondent No.2.
Mr. Greeshm Jain, learned counsel for the respondent No.3.
Rejoinders filed vide I.A. No.1802/2013 and I.A. No.1800/2013 are taken on record. Accordingly, I.A. No.1802/2013 and I.A. No.1800/2013 are allowed.
Learned counsel for the respondent No.3 submits that he shall file reply during course of the day.
Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 submits that he shall file an additional return during course of the day.
In view of order dated 19.12.2012 passed by the Division Bench of this Court, let the writ petition be listed on 25th February, 2013 for final disposal at the motion stage.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RC.
M.C.C. No.1245/201218.2.2013 Mr. Rajesh Tiwari, learned Government Advocate for the petitioner.
Heard on I.A. No.11955/2012, an application for condonation of delay.
For the reasons assigned in the application, which is duly supported by an affidavit, I find sufficient cause for delay in filing the M.C.C. is made out. Accordingly, I.A. No.11955/2012 is allowed.
Heard.
In view of order dated 31.10.2012, learned Government Advocate has filed an affidavit.
On perusal of application, which is duly supported by an affidavit, I find that sufficient cause for restoration of W.P.5414/2005 is made out.
Accordingly, the writ petition No. 5414/2005 is restored to file.
M.C.C. is allowed.
Certified copy as per rules.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RC.
Writ Petition No.13017/201218.2.2013 Mr. V.K. Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Rajesh Tiwari, learned Government Advocate for the respondents.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RC.
Writ Petition No.22093/201218.2.2013 Let the writ petition be listed as soon as the respondents are served.
Interim order dated 27.12.2012 shall continue till next date of hearing.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RC.
Writ Petition No.21270/201218.02.2013 Ms. J. Iyer, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Rajesh Tiwari, learned Government Advocate for the respondents.
Heard on I.A. No.1912/2013, an application for amendment.
Taking into account the nature of proposed amendment and for the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed.
Let necessary amendment be carried out during course of the day.
Let return on behalf of the respondents be filed within a period of four weeks.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RC Writ Petition No.21571/2012 18.2.2013 Mr. Ishan Mehta, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Rajesh Tiwari, learned Government Advocate for the respondents.
Heard.
In this writ petition, the grievance of the petitioner is that on completion of 30 years of the service he has been retired. Further grievance of the petitioner is that he is a contingent and work-charged employee. However, his date of retirement would be 62 years.
The aforesaid controversy has been dealt with by this Court in the bunch of cases, in which one of the case is W.P. No.16849/2010 decided on 23.04.2012 and the directions have been issued to the State Government to examine the case of individual employee in the light of the directions, so issued in the said case. On the other hand, learned Government Advocate submitted that the State Government may be directed to decide the controversy involved in the instant writ petition in the light of the aforesaid decision.
I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and in the facts of the case, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the State Government to examine the case of the present petitioner in the light of the order dated 23.04.2012 passed in W.P. No.16849/2010 and after affording an opportunity of hearing, appropriate order be passed.
Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. Certified copy as per rules.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RC.
Writ Petition No.3909/200915.2.2013 Mr. Hemant Shrivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Mr. Anoop Nair, Advocate with Mr. Shoiab Khan, learned counsel for the respondents.
Arguments heard.
Order dictated, signed & dated separately.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RC.
Writ Petition No.12423/201215.02.2013 Mr. K.C. Ghildiyal, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Mr. Piyush Dharmadhikari, leaned Government Advocate for the respondents.
Heard.
In this writ petition, the petitioner has assailed the validity of order dated 10.06.2012, by which the petitioner, who is Jail Warder has been transferred from Sub Jail, Patan to Sub Jail, Panna.
Learned counsel for the petitioner while inviting the attention of this Court to interim order dated 16.08.2012 submitted that this Court while entertaining the writ petition has stayed the operation and effect of order of transfer. Thus, the order of transfer of the petitioner has lost its efficacy on account of efflux of time. On the other hand, learned Government Advocate for the respondents submitted that liberty be granted to the Competent Authority to pass fresh order of transfer taking into account the administrative exigency, if any.
Taking into account submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and in the facts of the case, the impugned order dated 10.06.2012 is hereby quashed. However, the respondents would be at liberty to pass afresh order of transfer by taking into account the administrative exigency, if any.
Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RC Writ Petition No.16785/2010 15.02.2013 Mr. Deepak Awasthy, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Mr. Piyush Dharmadhikari, leaned Government Advocate for the respondents.
Learned counsel for the respondents prays for adjournment on the ground that arguing counsel Mr. Kumaresh Pathak is out of station.
As prayed, let the writ petition be listed on 21st February, 2013.
In view of order dated 10.10.2012 passed by the Division Bench in R.P. 765/2012, it is made clear that no further adjournment shall be granted on the said date.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RC Writ Petition No.2164/2013 15.02.2013 Mr. D.K. Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioners.
Heard on the question of admission as well as interim relief.
On payment of P.F. by registered post with acknowledgment due within a week, issue notice of this petition on merit as well as interim relief to the respondents. Notices be made returnable within a period of four weeks.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that initially the petitioners were appointed on the post of Helper and in the year of 1989 they were promoted as Meter Reader. However, vide order dated 12.12.2012 i.e. after a lapse of more than 24 years, the petitioners have been demoted to the post of Helper without assigning any reason and without any show-cause notice.
Taking into account the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners and in the facts of the case, it is directed that till next date of hearing, the service conditions of the petitioners shall not be varied to their disadvantage.
C.C. as per rules.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge a/rc.
Writ Petition No.17493/201215.02.2013 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he has filed I.A. No.2419/2013, an application for interim relief today itself.
Let the writ petition be listed on 18th February, 2013.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RC ConC. No.1026/2012 15.02.2013 Mr. V.D.S. Chauhan, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order dated 17.5.2012 passed in W.P. No.7764/2012 (s) has been complied with.
In view of aforesaid statement, the proceeding for contempt is dropped. Accordingly, the contempt petition is disposed of.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RC Writ Petition No.7764/2012 15.02.2013 Mr. V.D.S. Chauhan, learned counsel for the petitioner.
As directed by this Court vide order dated 17.05.2012, let the writ petition be listed for analogous hearing along with W.P. No.7268/2012.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RC Writ Petition No.8636/2012 15.02.2013 As prayed by learned counsel for the petitioner, let the writ petition be listed along with W.P. Nos. 6597/2012, 8635/2012 and 10479/2012.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RC Writ Petition No.8768/2012 15.02.2013 Parties through their counsel. Heard on I.A. No.2417/2013, an application for amendment.
Taking into account the nature of proposed amendment and for the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed.
Let necessary amendment be carried out within a period of one week.
On payment of process fees by registered post acknowledgment due within a period of one week, issue notice of the petition to the respondents.
Notices be made returnable within a period of four weeks.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RC Writ Petition No.8922/2012 15.02.2013 Mrs. Sharada Dubey, learned Panel Lawyer prays for and is granted four weeks' time to file return.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RC Writ Petition No.10049/2012 15.02.2013 Learned counsel for the respondents No.1 and 5 prays for and is granted four weeks time to file reply.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RC Writ Petition No.11387/2012 15.02.2013 Ms. Sharada Dubey, learned Panel Lawyer prays for and is granted three weeks' time to file reply.
Let the writ petition be listed immediately after three weeks.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RC Writ Petition No.13934/2012 15.02.2013 Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for and is granted two weeks' time to file rejoinder.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RC Writ Petition No.14590/2012 15.02.2013 Learned counsel for the respondents pray for and are granted further two weeks' time to file reply.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RC Writ Petition No.16974/2012 15.02.2013 Learned counsel for the respondents prays for and is granted four weeks' time to file return.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RC Writ Petition No.17348/2012 15.02.2013 Learned counsel for the respondents pray for and are granted four weeks time to file return.
Interim order dated 08.11.2012 shall continue till next date of hearing.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RC Writ Petition No.17760/2012 15.02.2013 Mr. Bramha Nand Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Heard on the question of admission. Admit.
On payment of process fees by registered post acknowledgment due within a period of one week, issue notice of the petition to the respondents.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RC Writ Petition No.17806/2012 15.02.2013 Mr. D.K. Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Sanjay Verma, learned counsel for the respondents submits that against the order which has been impugned in the instant writ petition, an appeal lies under Section 7(7) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. However, the petitioner has approached this Court without availing the aforesaid remedy.
In view of aforesaid objection made by learned counsel for the respondent, learned counsel for the petitioner prays for adjournment in order to enable him to examine aforesaid aspect.
As prayed by learned counsel for the petitioner, let the writ petition be listed alongwith W.P. No.17800/2012 and W.P. No.880/2013 for analogous hearing, in course of next week.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RC Writ Petition No.4335/2012 15.02.2013 Mr. Rajendra Shrivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Mr. Piyush Dharmadhikari, learned Government Advocate for the respondents No.1 to 3.
None for the respondent No.4. Mr. K.C. Khildiyal, learned counsel for the respondent No.5.
With consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard finally.
In this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the validity of order dated 11.8.2010 passed by the Collector, by which the appointment of the petitioner on the post of Panchayat Secretary has been cancelled. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Commissioner, which has been dismissed vide order dated 27.12.2010. The order of Commissioner has been upheld by the Revisional Authority vide order dated 29.02.2012.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the appointment of the petitioner on the post of Panchayat Secretary has been cancelled by impugned order dated 11.8.2010 passed by the Collector without following the procedure prescribed under Rule 7 of Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 (hereinafter in short referred to as "the Rules"). Therefore, no sanctity can be attached to the aforesaid order, as the same is procedurally ultra-vires. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on decision of Division Bench of this Court in the case of Lalla Prasad Burman Vs. State of M.P. and others, 2008 (3) M.P.L.J., 394.
On the other hand, learned Government Advocate for respondents No.1 to 3 and learned counsel for the respondent No.5 submitted that cancellation of appointment of the petitioner from the post of Panchayat Secretary does not amount to major penalty. Therefore, procedure prescribed under Rule 7 of the Rules is not required to be followed.
I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Lalla Prasad (supra) has held that before taking any action for denotification of the Panchayat Secretary, an enquiry as contemplated under Rule 7 of the Rules is required to be held. In the instant writ petition, the enquiry as contemplated by the Rules has not been held. Therefore, the order dated 11.8.2010 passed by the Collector cannot be sustained in eye of law. Accordingly, the orders dated 11.8.2010, 27.12.2010 and 29.02.2012 are hereby quashed. Needless to state that the Gram Panchayat as well as the Collector would be at liberty to take appropriate action against the petitioner in accordance with law.
Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. Certified copy as per rules.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RC M.C.C. No.187/2013 15.02.2013 Mr. Brijesh Choubey, learned counsel for the petitioners.
Mr. A.K. Mishra, learned counsel for the respondent. This application has been filed seeking modification of order dated 10.12.2012 passed in W.P. No.7546/2012.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that while deciding the writ petition, the petitioners were directed to conclude the proceedings in departmental enquiry within a period of two months. It is further submitted that despite due diligence, the proceedings in departmental enquiry could not be completed within a stipulated time. He, therefore, prays that time limit for completion of the departmental enquiry be extended by further period of four months.
In view of aforesaid submission, the order dated 10.12.2012 passed by this Court in W.P. No.7546/2012 is modified and time limit for conclusion of departmental enquiry is extended by further period of four months from today. This order shall be read with in conjunction with order dated 10.12.2012 passed in W.P. No.7546/2012.
Accordingly, M.C.C. is disposed of. Certified copy as per rules.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RC M.C.C. No.137/2013 15.02.2013 Mr. A. P. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners.
Heard.
This application has been filed for restoration of writ petition No.18790/2011 which was dismissed for want of prosecution on 21.01.2013.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the case was listed on 21.1.2013, but his junior could not mark the said case in the cause list. Therefore, when the matter was called out for hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner did not appear to address the court. The application for restoration is duly supported by an affidavit. Even otherwise, it is well settled in law that for the fault on the part of the counsel, party should not be penalized [See : Rafiq and another Vs. Munshilal and another, AIR 1981 SC 1400 and Secretary, Department of Horticulture, Chandigarh and another Vs. Raghu Raj, AIR 2009 SC 514.] For the aforementioned reason, I find sufficient cause for restoration of the writ petition No.18790/2011 is made out. Accordingly, writ petition No. 18790/2011 is restored to file.
M.C.C. is allowed.
Certified copy as per rules.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RC Writ Petition No.2306/2013 15.02.2013 Mr. S.K. Soni, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Piyush Dharmadhikari, learned Government Advocate for the respondents.
Heard.
In this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the validity of order dated 31.1.2013, by which the petitioner has been placed under suspension by the Commissioner.
Admittedly, against the impugned order, an appeal lies under Rule 23 of Madhya Pradesh Civil Service (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rule 1966, to the Appellate Authority.
In view of aforesaid, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he be granted the liberty to file an appeal before the Appellate Authority.
Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction that in case, the petitioner prefers an appeal within a period of 10 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order passed today, the appeal shall be dealt with by the Appellate Authority in accordance with law.
Certified copy as per rules.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RC Writ Petition No.2266/2013 15.02.2013 Mr. Dharmendra Soni, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Heard on the question of admission. Admit.
On payment of process fees by registered post acknowledgment due within a period of one week, issue notice of the petition to the respondents.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RC Writ Petition No.16984/2007 15.02.2013 Learned Government Advocate prays for adjournment in order to enable him to go through the rejoinder and to file an additional return within a period of two weeks, if so advised.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RC Writ Petition No.7596/2009 15.02.2013 Mr. Kamlesh Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Heard on the question of admission. On payment of process fees by registered post acknowledgment due within a period of one week, issue notice of the petition to the respondents.
Notices be made returnable within a period of six weeks.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RC W.P. No.12389/2011 15.2.2013 Rejoinder filed vide I.A. No.12986/2012 is taken on record.
Learned Government Advocate may go through rejoinder and may file an additional return within a period of three weeks, if so advised.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RC.
Writ Petition No.5154/201215.2.2013 Parties through their counsel. In view of order dated 28.9.2012, no further order is required to be passed on I.A. No.4442/2012.
Accordingly, the same is disposed of.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RC.
Writ Petition No.3919/199914.2.2013 Mr. Kapil Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Anoop Nair, learned counsel for the respondent. Arguments heard.
Order dictated, signed & dated separately.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RC.
Writ Petition No.12639/201013.2.2013 Parties through their counsel. List I.A. No.16538/2012 for consideration in the month of March, 2013.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RC.
Writ Petition No.11270/201013.2.2013 Parties through their counsel. List I.A. No.13502/2011 for consideration in week commencing 11th March, 2013.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RC.
Writ Petition No.13916/201113.2.2013 Parties through their counsel. Heard on I.A. No.12563/2012, an application for taking additional documents on record.
For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed. The documents annexed with the application are taken on record.
As agreed to by learned counsel for the parties, let the writ petition be listed for final disposal at motion stage on 13th March, 2013.
Interim order dated 26.8.2011 shall continue till next date of hearing.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RC.
Writ Petition No.2159/201213.2.2013 Mr. C.M. Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the controversy involved in the instant writ petition is squarely covered by the order dated 30.9.2012 passed in W.P. No.14652/2011 (s) by a Bench of this Court. It is further submitted that the services of the petitioner have been terminated without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
In view of aforesaid statement, learned Government Advocate prays for and is granted three weeks' time to seek instructions in the matter and to make statement in this regard or to file reply, if so advised.
As prayed, let the writ petition be listed in the week commencing 4th March, 2013.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RC.
Writ Petition No.12586/201213.2.2013 Mr. Brijesh Choubey, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Mr. Govind Patel, learned counsel for the respondents.
In view of I.A. No.14104/2012 filed on behalf of the respondents, learned counsel for the petitioner prays for and is granted three days time to move an application for amendment in the cause title.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RC.
Writ Petition No.651/200713.2.2013 Learned counsel for the petitioner while inviting the attention of this Court to the office note dated 9.5.2007 has submitted that process fee has been paid by registered post as well as ordinary mode on 20th March, 2007 itself.
In view of aforesaid statement, the office objection is ignored.
Learned Panel Lawyer for the respondents prays for and is granted four weeks' time to file reply.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RC.
Writ Petition No.1509/200813.2.2013 Let I.A. No.10086/2012 be listed for consideration in the month of April, 2013.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RC.
Writ Petition No.14894/200813.2.2013 Mr. Praveen Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Mr. Piyush Dharmadhikari, learned Government Advocate for the respondents No.1 and 2.
Mr. Mayank Singh Thakur, learned counsel for the respondent No.3 None for the respondents No. 4 and 5. With consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard finally.
In this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the validity of order dated 11.8.2008 passed by the Collector.
Facts giving rise to filing of the writ petition briefly stated are that the Gram Panchayat has passed a resolution dated 8.8.2007 to appoint the petitioner on the post of Panchayat Karmi. The respondent No.5 challenged the resolution before the Collector in revision. The Collector vide order dated 11.8.2008 allowed the revision preferred by the respondent No.5 and directed his appointment. In the aforesaid factual backdrop, the petitioner has approached this Court.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent No.5 has been appointment on compassionate basis on the post of Assistant Teacher and the post of Panchayat Karmi of Gram Panchayat, Aamera has fallen vacant. It is further submitted that the Gram Panchayat has passed a resolution to appoint the petitioner on the post of Panchayat Karmi. On the other hand, leaned counsel for the respondents submitted that if the post of Panchayat Karmi has fallen vacant, the Gram Panchayat is at liberty to make appointment in accordance with law.
In view of submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and in the facts of the case, writ petition is disposed of with a direction to Gram Panchayat to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment on the post of Panchayat Karmi in accordance with law and in light of resolution dated 8.8.2007.
Certified copy as per rules.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RC.
Writ Petition No.12697/201013.2.2013 Learned counsel for the petitioner undertakes to supply a copy of rejoinder to learned counsel for the respondents No.1 and 2 during course of the day.
Learned counsel for the respondents may go through rejoinder and file additional reply within a period of one week, if so advised.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RC.
Writ Petition No.46/201113.2.2013 Learned Panel Lawyer for the respondents prays for and is granted four weeks' time to file return.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RC.
Writ Petition No.5174/201113.2.2013 Learned Panel Lawyer for the respondents No.1 to 3 undertakes to supply copy of return to Mr. R.K. Khare, learned counsel for the respondent No.5 within a period of three days.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RC.
Writ Petition No.4356/199812.2.2013 Mr. Amit Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Piyush Dharmadhikari, learned Government Advocate for the respondent No.1.
Mr. M.L. Jaiswal, learned Senior Counsel with Mr. Manoj Kushwaha, learned counsel for the respondents No.2 and 3.
Arguments heard.
Order dictated, signed & dated separately.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RC.
Writ Petition No.227/200911.02.2013 Mr. Dhirendra Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Mr. Piyush Dharmadhikari, learned Government Advocate for the respondents No.1 to 5.
Mr. Govind Patel, learned counsel for the respondent No.6.
With consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard finally.
In this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the validity of order dated 13.10.2008 passed by the revisional authority under the provisions of M.P. Panchayat Raj Avam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam 1993. In order to appreciate the petitioner's grievance, few facts need mention which are stated infra.
2. In pursuance of an advertisement issued by the Gram Panchayat for recruitment on the post of Panchayat Karmi, the petitioner, respondent No.6 as well as other candidates submitted their applications. The petitioner secured 69% marks and the respondent No.6 secured 65.6% marks. Accordingly, the petitioner by order dated 13.12.2007 was appointed as Panchayat Karmi of Gram Panchayat Bhaati Sengar. Thereafter, the petitioner was notified on the post of Panchayat Secretary vide order dated 10.1.2008. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the respondent No.6 filed the revision before the Commissioner. The Commissioner vide order dated 24.3.2008 dismissed the revision inter-alia on the ground that there is no provision for reservation on the post of Panchayat Karmi and petitioner is more meritorious than the respondent No.6. Against the aforesaid order, the respondent No.6 preferred a revision before the Revisional Authority. The Revisional Authority dismissed the same vide order dated 9.9.2008. Thereafter the respondent No.6 preferred a review of the aforesaid order and the same was allowed by the Revisional Authority by the impugned order and remitted the matter to Collector to take decision in accordance with guidelines for reservation. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order passed by the Revisional Authority is perse without jurisdicition, as there is no provision under the Panchayat Karmi Scheme which provides for reservation. Therefore, the Revisional Authority grossly erred in passing the impugned order.
3. On the other hand, Mr. Piyush Dharmadhikari, learned Government Advocate for the respondents No.1 to 5 has supported the stand taken by the petitioner.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent No.6 submitted that in view of the instructions contained in letter dated 31.7.2006 of Collector, Sidhi respondent No.6 being a member belonging to Scheduled Caste community, was entitled to receive 10 marks. However, the 10 marks were not awarded to him. Learned counsel for the respondent No.6 was unable to point out any provision which provides for reservation on the post of Panchayat Karmi.
5. I have considered the respective submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. There is no provision in the Panchayat Karmi Scheme, 1995 for providing reservation. The post of Panchayat Karmi is a singular post in the Gram Panchayat and therefore, no reservation can be permitted, as it would amount to granting 100% reservation, which is impermissible in law. Admittedly, the petitioner is more meritorious than the respondent No.6. The State Government has issued instructions dated 13.8.2007, which provides for recruitment on the post of Panchayat Karmi and the same only provides for giving preference to women, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribe category candidates. The aforesaid instructions do not provide for grant of additional marks to candidates belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribe category or to the women candidate. So far as the reliance placed by learned counsel for the respondent No.6 on the communication dated 31.7.2006 is concerned, the same is contrary to the instructions issued by the State Government for recruitment on the post of Panchayat Karmi. From the aforesaid narration of facts, it is apparent that the petitioner is more meritorious than the respondent No.6, as he secured 69% marks and the respondent No.6 had secured 65.6% marks.
6. In view of preceding analysis, the order dated 13.10.2008 passed by the Revisional Authority cannot be sustained in the eye of law. Accordingly, the same is quashed. In result, the writ petition is allowed.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RC Writ Petition No.1977/2013 11.02.2013 Mr. V.D.S. Chauhan, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Heard on the question of admission as well as interim relief.
On payment of process fees by registered post acknowledgment due within a period of one week, issue notice of the petition to the respondents.
Notices be made returnable within a period of four weeks.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is working as Assistant Teacher in Government Middle School- Khamkariya, Sankul Kendra Government Higher Secondary School - Koonda. By the impugned order dated 30.1.2013, petitioner has been suspended by the District Education Officer. As per order dated 22.8.2008 the disciplinary authority is Joint Director, who is competent to suspend the petitioner. It is further submitted that the writ petition involving similar issue has been entertained and interim order has been granted. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the petitioner has invited attention of this Court to the order dated 07.09.2012 passed in writ petition No.14919/2012 (s).
In view of submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and with a view to maintain parity, the operation and effect of order dated 30.01.2013 is stayed till next date of hearing.
However, the interim order shall not prevent the competent authority to take action in the matter in accordance with law.
Let the writ petition be listed along with W.P. No.10444/2012, W.P. No.7764/2012 and W.P. No.14919/2012 for analogous hearing.
Certified copy as per rules.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RC Writ Petition No.2007/2013 (in case representation is filed) 11.02.2013 Mr. Vishal Dhagat, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Mrs. Sharada Dubey, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondents No.1 to 5.
Heard.
In this writ petition, the petitioner inter-alia seeks a direction to the respondents to decide the application submitted by the petitioner to the Sub-Divisional Officer within a stipulated time limit.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had participated in the process of appointment on the post of Village Employment Assistant. As per guidelines, which have been issued by the State Government, the select list has to be prepared by the Project Officer, Janpad Panchayat and the same shall be forwarded to Gram Panchayat for finalisation. However, the Sub-Divisional Officer and the Collector are pressurizing the Gram Panchayat to finalise the approved provisional list and initiated disciplinary proceedings against Sarpanch, Secretary and Members of the Gram Panchayat. It is further submitted that with regard to the grievance of the petitioner, he be permitted to submit a representation to the respondent No.2 namely the Commissioner, M.P. Rajya Rozgar and the Commissioner shall consider the representation submitted by the petitioner.
On the other hand, learned Panel Lawyer submits that if such a representation is submitted, the same shall be dealt with in accordance with law.
In view of submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and in the facts of the case, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction that in case, the petitioner submits a representation with regard to his grievances to the respondent No.2 namely the Commissioner within a week from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order passed today, the Commissioner shall decide the representation submitted by the petitioner with a speaking order within a period of four months from the date of receipt of such representation. It is made clear that this court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.
Certified copy as per rules.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RC Writ Petition No.22019/2012 11.02.2013 Mr. S.P. Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Mrs. Sharada Dubey, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondents.
Heard.
In this writ petition, the petitioner inter-alia seeks a direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment and to regularise his salary as well.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is working on the post of Assistant Teacher. The Principal of the school has issued the order dated 1.9.1994 that whenever the post will be vacant, the petitioner shall be entitled to salary. It is further submitted that one post of Assistant Teacher has fallen vacant on 30.9.2008. It is also submitted that with regard to his grievances, the petitioner has submitted a representation to the Competent Authority. However, the same has failed to evoke any response. On the other hand learned Panel Lawyer submitted that the representation submitted by the petitioner shall be dealt with in accordance with law.
In view of submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and in the facts of the case, I deem it proper to dispose of the writ petition with a direction to the Competent Authority to consider and decide the representation submitted by the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order passed today by a speaking order. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.
Certified copy as per rules.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RC Writ Petition No.92/2013 11.02.2013 Mr. R.S. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner. Heard on the question of admission. On payment of PF by registered post with acknowledgment due within a period of one week, issue notice of the writ petition to the respondents.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RC Writ Petition No.1963/2013 11.02.2013 Mr. Rajas Pohankar, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Heard on the question of admission as well as interim relief.
On payment of PF by registered post with acknowledgment due within a period of one week, issue notice of the writ petition to the respondents.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RC Writ Petition No.1982/2013 11.02.2013 Mr. Pushpraj Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Heard on the question of admission. On payment of PF by registered post with acknowledgment due within a period of one week, issue notice of the writ petition to the respondents.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RC Writ Petition No.2071/2013 11.02.2013 Mr. Anoop Saxena, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Mrs. Sharada Dubey, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondents.
Heard.
In this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the validity of order dated 05.03.2012, by which the petitioner has been transferred from Primary Health Centre, Nowgoan to Primary Health Centre, Gaurihar.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that husband of the petitioner is posted near Nowgoan and nobody has been posted in place of her. It is further submitted that with regard to the grievance of the petitioner, she be permitted to submit a representation to the competent authority and the competent authority shall consider and decide the representation submitted by the petitioner within stipulated time limit. On the other hand, learned Panel Lawyer submits that if such a representation is submitted, the same shall be dealt with in accordance with law.
In view of submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and in the facts of the case, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction that in case, the petitioner submits a representation with regard to her grievances to the Competent Authority within a week from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order passed today, the Competent Authority shall decide the representation submitted by the petitioner with a speaking order within a month from the date of receipt of such representation. It is made clear that this court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.
Certified copy as per rules.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RC Writ Petition No.2044/2013 11.02.2013 Mr. Chandrapal Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Mr. Piyush Dharmadhikari, learned Government Advocate for the respondents No.1, 2 and 4.
Heard.
In this writ petition, the petitioner inter-alia seeks a direction to the respondents to appoint him on the post of Village Employment Assistant in Gram Panchayat, Gahra, Tahsil and District- Panna.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that though respondent No.3 had finalised the merit list and has forwarded the same to the respondent No.5 vide letter dated 25.9.2012, yet no action is being taken on the merit list which has been forwarded by the respondent No.3. It has further submitted that with regard to the grievance of the petitioner, he be permitted to submit a representation to the competent authority and the competent authority shall consider the representation submitted by the petitioner.
On the other hand, learned Government Advocate submits that if such a representation is submitted, the same shall be dealt with in accordance with law.
In the facts of the case, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction that in case, the petitioner submits a representation with his grievances to the Collector within a week from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order passed today, the Collector shall decide the representation submitted by the petitioner with a speaking order within a month from the date of receipt of such representation. It is made clear that this court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.
Certified copy as per rules.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RC Writ Petition No.2043/2013 11.02.2013 Mr. Chandrapal Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Mr. Piyush Dharmadhikari, learned Government Advocate for the respondents No.1, 2 and 4.
Heard.
In this writ petition, the petitioner inter-alia seeks a direction to the respondents to appoint him on the post of Village Employment Assistant in Gram Panchayat, Gajna, Tahsil and District- Panna.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that though respondent No.3 had finalised the merit list and has forwarded the same to the respondent No.5 vide letter dated 25.9.2012, yet no action is being taken on the merit list which has been forwarded by the respondent No.3. It has further submitted that with regard to the grievance of the petitioner, he be permitted to submit a representation to the competent authority and the competent authority shall consider the representation submitted by the petitioner.
On the other hand, learned Government Advocate submits that if such a representation is submitted, the same shall be dealt with in accordance with law.
In the facts of the case, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction that in case, the petitioner submits a representation with his grievances to the Collector within a week from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order passed today, the Collector shall decide the representation submitted by the petitioner with a speaking order within a month from the date of receipt of such representation. It is made clear that this court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.
Certified copy as per rules.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RC Writ Petition No.2055/2013 11.02.2013 Mr. A.K. Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Mrs. Sharada Dubey, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondents.
Learned counsel for the parties jointly submitted that the controversy involved in the instant writ petition is squarely covered by the order dated 12.12.2012 passed in writ petition No.20471/2012 (s).
In view of submission made by learned counsel for the parties and as agreed to by them, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the Competent Authority to consider the claim of the petitioner in terms of the directions issued by this Court in the case of Sukhlal, son of Vishram Balke namely writ petition No.4302/2009 (s) as modified by the Division Bench of this Court by an order dated 27.8.2011 in W.A. No.85/2011, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order passed today and in case it is found that the claim of the petitioner is identical to the case of Sukhlal (supra), the similar benefit be extended to her.
Certified copy as per rules.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RC.
Writ Petition No.2077/201311.02.2013 Mr. A.K. Jain, learned counsel for the petitioners. Heard on the question of admission as well as interim relief.
On payment of process fees by registered post acknowledgment due within a period of one week, issue notice of the petition to the respondents.
Notices be made returnable within a period of six weeks.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RC Writ Petition No.2087/2013 (s) 11.02.2013 Mr. Sanjay Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Heard on the question of admission as well as interim relief.
On payment of process fees by registered post acknowledgment due within a period of one week, issue notice of the petition to the respondents.
Notices be made returnable within a period of four weeks.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order dated 24.1.2013 is punitive in nature.
Taking into account the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner and in the facts of the case, the operation and effect of order dated 24.1.2013, so far as it pertains to the petitioner shall remain stayed till next date of hearing.
Certified copy as per rules.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RC Writ Petition No.11850/2011 11.02.2013 Mr. Chandrahas Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Mr. Piyush Dharmadhikari, learned Government Advocate for the respondents.
Mr. S.R. Tamrakar, learned counsel for the respondent No.4.
Mr. Mahinder Bhatti, learned counsel for the respondent No.5.
With consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard finally.
In this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the advertisement dated 27.6.2011 issued by the Collector, District- Balaghat for the post of Panchayat Karmi.
This Court by an order passed today in writ petition No.2890/2008 has already allowed the writ petition and has quashed the order of Sub-Divisional Officer by which the respondent No.5 was removed from the post of Panchayat Karmi.
In view of aforesaid order, the advertisement which has been impugned in the instant writ petition has been rendered in effective. Therefore, no relief can be granted to the petitioner. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RC Writ Petition No.2890/2008 11.02.2013 Mr. Mahinder Bhatti, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Mr. Piyush Dharmadhikari, learned Government Advocate for the respondents No.1 to 3.
Mr. Chandrahas Dubey, learned counsel for the respondent No.4.
Mr. S.R. Tamrakar, learned counsel for the respondent No.6.
With consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard finally.
In this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the validity of order dated 26.2.2008 passed by the Sub- Divisional Officer, by which appointment of the petitioner on the post of Panchayat Karmi has been quashed.
Facts giving rise to filing of the writ petition briefly stated are that the Gram Panchayat Bagholi, Tahsil- Baihar, District-Balaghat passed a resolution on 2.6.2007 under Clause 3.3. of Panchayat Karmi Scheme, by which an additional criteria was prescribed for appointment on the post of Panchayat Karmi. Thereafter, an advertisement dated 5.8.2007 was issued, by which applications were invited for appointment on the post of Panchayat Karmi. The petitioner as well as the respondent No.4 and several other candidates submitted their applications. The petitioner was appointed on the post of Panchayat Karmi on 27.8.2007. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the respondent No.4 filed an appeal before the Collector. The Collector on 19.9.2007 forwarded the appeal to Sub- Divisional Officer as the Sub-Divisional Officer is the Competent Authority to decide the appeal. The Sub- Divisional Officer vide order dated 26.2.2008 allowed the appeal preferred by the respondent No.4 on the ground that as per the circular dated 13.8.2007 issued by the State Government, the appointment to the post of Panchayat Karmi was to be made on the basis of merit. In the aforesaid factual backdrop, the petitioner has approached this Court.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Panchayat Karmi by order dated 27.8.2007. It is further submitted that an advertisement was issued on 5.8.2007 and the process for recruitment was already initiated prior to issuance of circular dated 13.8.2007. Therefore, the aforesaid circular has no retrospective effect. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the decision of this Court reported in case of Kalpnath Vs. State of M.P., 2012 (1) M.P.L.J. 45.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the order passed by learned Sub-Divisional Officer is perfectly just and legal and does not call for any interference.
I have considered the respective submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. Admittedly, the process for recruitment on the post of Panchayat Karmi was initiated on 5.8.2007 i.e. prior to issuance of circular dated 13.8.2007. On close scrutiny of circular dated 13.8.2007 issued by the State Govt., it is apparent that the same does not apply in respect of selection for appointment on the post of Panchayat Karmi initiated before the issuance of aforesaid circular. [See : Kalpnath Vs. State of M.P., 2012 (1) M.P.L.J. 45]. For the aforementioned reasons, the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer vide order dated 26.2.2008 cannot be sustained in the eye of law. The same is accordingly quashed.
In result, the writ petition is allowed.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RC Writ Petition No.1039/2012 11.02.2013 Mr. Vipin Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Ishan Mehta, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the return shall be filed by 13 th February, 2013.
Let the writ petition be listed for further orders on 18th February, 2013.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RC Writ Petition No.4177/2002 11.02.2013 Mr. Akash Choudhary, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Mr. Anoop Nair, learned counsel for the respondents No.1 to 3.
Mr. Ajay Ojha, learned counsel for the respondents No.4 and 5.
With consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard finally.
In this writ petition, the petitioner inter-alia seeks quashment of the charge-sheet dated 18.7.2002.
2. Background facts leading to filing of the writ petition briefly stated are that the petitioner had furnished the caste certificate issued by Collector, Durg (Annexure P/16) at the time of entering into service that he belongs to Scheduled Caste being member of Halbi community. On receipt of the caste certificate, the same was sent by the respondent Bank for verification to the Collector. The Collector thereafter by communication dated 29.5.2002, informed the respondents that the caste certificate submitted by the petitioner is incorrect and the petitioner does not belongs to 'Halbi' community but belongs to 'Koshti' community. On the aforesaid report, the respondent employer issued the charge-sheet to the petitioner, which is subject matter of challenged in this instant writ petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the District Level Caste Scrutiny Committee had no authority in law to examine the genuineness of caste certificate, which was furnished by the petitioner. The genuineness of caste certificate could have been examined only by the High Power Caste Scrutiny Committee constituted in view of law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Kumari Madhuri Patil and another Vs. Additional Commissioner, Tribunal Development and others, (1994) 6 SCC 241. Therefore, the action of the employer in issuing the charge-sheet on the basis of report of the committee, to the petitioner is patently arbitrary. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that in view of report which was received from the Collector, the charge-sheet was issued.
4. I have considered the respective submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. In case of Madhuri Patil (supra), the Supreme Court has held that the issue with regard to genuineness of the caste certificate has to be examined by the High Power Caste Scrutiny Committee. Therefore, in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court, the District Level Caste Scrutiny Committee had no authority in law to examine the genuineness of caste certificate, which was furnished by the petitioner. Therefore, the action of the Bank in issuing the charge-sheet to the petitioner on the basis of report submitted by the District Level Caste Committee cannot be sustained in the eye of law.
5. In result the report submitted by District Level Caste Committee as well as the charge-sheet is hereby quashed. However, the Bank would be at liberty to get examined the genuineness of the caste certificate by the High Power Caste Scrutiny Committee constituted by the State Government in view of decision of Supreme Court in the case of Madhuri Patil (supra) and thereafter proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law. Needless to state that the Bank shall take a decision with regard to genuineness of caste certificate of the petitioner after receipt of report of the High Power Caste Scrutiny Committee.
Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed off.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RC Writ Petition No.2090/2013 11.02.2013 Mr. Prakash Upadhyay, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Mr. Sanjay Dwivedi, learned Government Advocate for the respondents.
Heard on the question of admission as well as interim order.
On payment of process fees by registered post acknowledgment due within a period of one week, issue notice of the petition to the respondents.
Notices be made returnable within a period of four weeks.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that by order dated 25.11.2011, the petitioner was transferred from Satna to Umariya. However, the petitioner was not relieved. Thereafter, by impugned order dated 15.7.2012, the petitioner has been transferred from Satna to Mandsaur, even though the earlier order of transfer was in vogue.
In view of submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner and in facts of the case, it is directed that the petitioner shall continue as Revenue Inspector at the present place of posting i.e. Satna.
Certified copy as per rules.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RC Writ Petition No.16314/2012 11.02.2013 Mr. Brajesh Choubey, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petition has been rendered infructuous by efflux of time.
Accordingly, the same is dismissed.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge a.
Writ Petition No.16803/201211.02.2013 Mr. Ajay Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Mr. Sanjay Dwivedi, learned Government Advocate prays for and is granted four weeks' time to file return.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge a.
Writ Petition No.408/2013 (s) 11.02.2013 Mr. V.D.S. Chouhan, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Mr. Sanjay Dwivedi, learned Government Advocate prays for and is granted four weeks' time to file return.
Interim order dated 11.01.2013 shall continue till next date of hearing.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge a.
Writ Petition No.1857/201308.02.2013 Mr. Atul Choudhari, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Mrs. Sharada Dubey, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondents.
Heard.
In this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the validity of order dated 04.01.2013, by which the petitioner has been transferred from Sub-Health Centre Mankahari to Sub-Health Centre Chormari, Community Health Centre Rampur Baghelan.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that by order dated 30.10.2012, the petitioner was transferred to Sub-Health Centre Mankahari and in pursuance of said order, he joined on 27.12.2012. However, within a short span of 9 days, he has been further transferred to Sub- Health Centre Mankahari. It is further submitted that in case the petitioner is required to carry out order of transfer, the studies of his children would be adversely affected. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner be granted liberty to submit a representation to the Competent Authority with regard to his grievance and the Competent Authority be directed to decide the representation submitted by the petitioner expeditiously. On the other hand, learned Panel Lawyer submitted that in case, such a representation is submitted by the petitioner, the same shall be dealt with in accordance with law.
In view of submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and in the facts of the case, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction that in case, the petitioner submits a representation with regard to his grievance within a period of 10 days from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order passed today to the Competent Authority, the Competent Authority shall consider and decide the same within a period of two months from the date of receipt of such a representation, by a speaking order. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. Till the representation submitted by the petitioner is decided, the petitioner shall continue at his present place of posting.
Certified copy as per rules.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RC Writ Petition No.2075/2013 08.02.2013 Mr. Mohd. Nasir Ansari, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Mrs. Sharada Dubey, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondents.
Heard.
In this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the validity of order dated 24.1.2013, by which the respondent No.4 has also been posted as Chief Municipal Officer, Nagar Parishad, Patan.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has already been posted as Chief Municipal Officer, Nagar Parishad, Patan. However, the respondent No.4 by the impugned order has been posted in place of the petitioner. It is also submitted that with regard to his grievance, petitioner has submitted a representation contained in Annexure P/10 to the Competent Authority and the writ petition be disposed of with a direction to the the Competent Authority to consider and decide the same expeditiously. On the other hand, learned Panel Lawyer submits that the representation submitted by the petitioner shall be dealt with expeditiously in accordance with law.
In view of submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and in the facts of the case, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the Competent Authority to decide the representation submitted by the petitioner expeditiously preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of production of the certified copy of the order passed today, by a speaking order. Needless to state that the Competent Authority shall afford an opportunity of hearing the petitioner as well as the respondent No.4. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. Till the representation submitted by the petitioner is decided, status-quo as it exists on today with regard to posting of the petitioner shall be maintained.
Certified copy as per rules.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RC Writ Petition No.2058/2013 08.02.2013 Mr. Swapnil Ganguly, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Heard on the question of admission as well as interim order.
On payment of process fees by registered post acknowledgment due within a period of one week, issue notice of the petition to the respondents.
Notices be made returnable within a period of four weeks.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the tender proceedings were finalised by the respondent No.3 namely Director, Indira Gandhi Rashtriya Manav Sangrahalaya, Bhopal and the petitioner was the only member of the committee. However, the respondent No.3 himself issued the charge-sheet to the petitioner. It is further submitted that it is trite law that no person shall be a judge in his own cause as the same is against the basic tenet of the principles of natural justice.
In view of submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and in the fact of the case, proceeding in the departmental enquiry initiated against the petitioner shall remain stayed till next date of hearing.
Certified copy as per rules.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RC Writ Petition No.10068/2012 08.02.2013 Mr. R.S. Rathor, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Piyush Dharmadhikari, learned Government Advocate for the respondents.
With consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard finally.
In this writ petition, the petitioner has assailed the validity of order dated 5.5.2012 by which he has been placed under suspension.
When the matter is taken up today for hearing, learned Government Advocate submitted that the order of suspension of the petitioner has been revoked vide order dated 22.12.2012.
In view of aforesaid statement, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that subsistence allowance has not been paid to the petitioner for the period of suspension.
In view of aforesaid submissions, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction that if the petitioner submits a representation to the Competent Authority with regard to his grievance, the Competent Authority shall consider and decide the same, by a speaking order within a period of two months from the date of receipt of such a representation. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.
Certified copy as per rules.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RC Writ Petition No.12307/2012 08.02.2013 Parties through their counsel. Rejoinder filed vide I.A. No.16182/2012 is taken on record.
Let the writ petition be listed for final disposal at motion stage on 6th March, 2013.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RC Writ Petition No.12963/2012 08.02.2013 Parties through their counsel. As prayed, let the writ petition be listed in the course of next week.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RC Writ Petition No.21767/2012 08.02.2013 Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for and is granted one week time to file rejoinder.
Let the writ petition be listed in the week commencing 18th February, 2013.
Interim order dated 21.12.2012 shall remain continue till next date of hearing.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RC Writ Petition No.17973/2012 08.02.2013 Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for and is granted two weeks' time to file rejoinder.
Interim order dated 29.10.2012 shall remain continue till next date of hearing.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RC Writ Petition No.19958/2012 08.02.2013 Mr. Piyush Dharmadhikari, learned Government Advocate prays for and is granted three weeks' time to file return.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RC Writ Petition No.20753/2012 08.02.2013 Mr. Piyush Dharmadhikari, learned Government Advocate prays for and is granted three weeks' time to file return.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RC Writ Petition No.182/2013 08.02.2013 Mr. Piyush Dharmadhikari, learned Government Advocate prays for and is granted three weeks' time to file return.
Interim order dated 07.1.2013 shall continue till next date of hearing.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RC Writ Petition No.2441/2003 08.02.2013 Parties through their counsel. Learned counsel for the parties submitted that pleadings in the case are complete.
Taking into account that the writ petition is pending since 2003, let the writ petition be listed for final disposal at the motion stage on 11th March, 2013.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RC Writ Petition No.546/2004 08.02.2013 Rejoinder filed vide I.A. No.12379/2012 is taken on record.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RC Writ Petition No.8950/2008 08.02.2013 Parties through their counsel. Learned counsel for the respondent No.7 submits that he filed I.A. No.1988/2010, an application for vacating stay. The same is pending and therefore, the same may be considered.
Let the writ petition be listed for consideration of I.A. No.1988/2010 on 25th February, 2013.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RC Writ Petition No.16303/2012 08.02.2013 Mr. A. M. Trivedi, learned senior counsel with Mr. Aseem Trivedi, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Heard on the question of admission as well as interim relief.
On payment of process fees by registered post acknowledgment due within a period of one week, issue notice of the petition to the respondents.
Notices be made returnable within a period of four weeks.
Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the writ petition involving similar issue has already been entertained and interim order has been passed. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to order dated 4.7.2012 passed in writ petition No.9748/2012 In view of aforesaid submission made by learned senior counsel for the petitioner and with a view to maintain parity, it is directed that the operation of order dated 6.8.2012 shall remain stayed till next date of hearing.
Certified copy as per rules.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RC Writ Petition No.9780/2012 08.02.2013 Let the writ petition be listed alongwith W.P. No.16303/2012.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RC Writ Petition No.9748/2012 08.02.2013 Let the writ petition be listed alongwith W.P. No.16303/2012.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RC Writ Petition No.1538/2013 08.02.2013 Mr. K.K. Kushwaha, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Mr. S.K. Rao, learned Senior Counsel along with Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the respondents.
In this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the validity of order dated 09.11.2012, by which the petitioner has been transferred from Bhopal to Chennai.
When the matter was taken up today for hearing, learned senior counsel for the respondents submitted that by order dated 18.1.2013 the order dated 9.11.2012 has already been cancelled.
In view of aforesaid submission, nothing survives for adjudication in the instant writ petition. However, the petitioner is at liberty to challenge order dated 18.1.2013 in accordance with law, if so advised.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RC Writ Petition No.1147/2013 08.02.2013 Mr. P.K. Shroti, learned counsel for the petitioner. Heard on the question of admission. In this writ petition, the petitioner inter-alia seeks a direction to the respondents to permit him to appear in the examination for recruitment on the post of Assistant Grade-III, which is scheduled to be held on 17.02.2013.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in pursuance of advertisement dated 17.12.2012 issued by the respondent No.1, the petitioner submitted an application for recruitment on the post in question. However, as per advertisement, the petitioner, who is a candidate belonging to general category and aged about 35 years is over-age. It is submitted that petitioner holds Green Card, therefore, he is entitled to relaxation in age for two years and is eligible to appear in the examination.
Learned counsel for the petitioner while inviting attention of this Court to the note containing in the advertisement (Annexure P/1) submitted that the benefit of relaxation of age as per instructions of the State Government shall be given to the employees of State Government, Physically Handicapped persons and Ex- serviceman. Therefore, it is apparent that the instructions issued by the State Government with regard to relaxation of age are applicable to advertisement which has been issued by the respondent No.1.
I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner. Even assuming that the instructions issued by the State Government with regard to relaxation in age apply to the advertisement in question, it is pertinent to note here that the aforesaid instructions are applicable to Government servants, physically handicapped persons and Ex-serviceman. The petitioner is not a person belonging to any of the aforesaid category. Therefore, he is not entitled to relaxation in age. The advertisement does not contain any such stipulation that a person who holds Green Card shall be entitled to relaxation in age. In the absence of any such stipulation in the advertisement, no relief can be granted to the petitioner.
In the result, writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RC Writ Petition No.1399/2013 08.02.2013 Let default be made good within a period of one week.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RC Writ Petition No.1994/2013 (s) 08.02.2013 Mr. Praveen Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Heard on the question of admission as well as interim relief.
On payment of process fees by registered post acknowledgment due within a period of one week, issue notice of the petition to the respondents.
Notices be made returnable within a period of four weeks.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order dated 05.01.2013 has been passed without holding any fact finding enquiry as disputed questions of fact had arisen and the work in question was already completed prior to posting of the petitioner. However, an amount of Rs.2,20,000/- has been directed to be recovered from the petitioner.
In view of submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and in fact of the case, it is directed that no recovery shall be made from the salary of the petitioner till next date of hearing.
Certified copy as per rules.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RC Writ Petition No.1880/2013 08.02.2013 Mr. Ajay S. Raizada, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Heard on the question of admission. On payment of PF by registered post with acknowledgment due within a period of one week, issue notice of the writ petition to the respondents.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RC Writ Petition No.2004/2013 08.02.2013 Mr. A.D. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner. Heard on the question of admission. On payment of PF by registered post with acknowledgment due within a period of one week, issue notice of the writ petition to the respondents.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RC Writ Petition No.2029/2013 08.02.2013 Mr. Ashish Rawat, learned counsel for the petitioner. Heard on the question of admission as well as interim relief.
On payment of process fees by registered post acknowledgment due within a period of one week, issue notice of the petition to the respondents.
Notices be made returnable within a period of four weeks.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order of transfer dated 21.01.2013 has been passed in contravention of order dated 28.9.2012 passed by a Bench of this Court in W.P. No.16375/2012.
In view of submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner and in fact of the case, it is directed that till next date of hearing, the operation and effect of order 21.1.2013 shall remain stayed, so far as it pertains to petitioner.
Certified copy as per rules.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RC Writ Petition No.2033/2013 (s) 08.02.2013 Mr. Praveen Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Heard on the question of admission as well as interim relief.
On payment of process fees by registered post acknowledgment due within a period of one week, issue notice of the petition to the respondents.
Notices be made returnable within a period of four weeks.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been terminated by a stigmatic order. It is also submitted that in an enquiry report also, no role has been attributed to the petitioner. It is further submitted that the work in question pertains prior to the posting of the petitioner on the place in question. It is further submitted that the petitioner has been appointed on the post of Assistant Engineer on contract basis and the appointment of the petitioner subsists till 31st March, 2013.
In view of submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner and in the facts of the case, it is directed that the petitioner shall be allowed to continue on the post of Assistant Engineer (contract basis) till 31st March, 2013.
Certified copy as per rules.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RC Writ Petition No.2040/2013 08.02.2013 Mr. K. C. Ghildiyal, learned counsel for the petitioner. Heard on the question of admission as well as interim relief.
On payment of process fees by registered post acknowledgment due within a period of one week, issue notice of the petition to the respondents.
Notices be made returnable within a period of four weeks.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is holding a substantive post of Inspector and DIG is not competent to initiate departmental enquiry against the petitioner. It is further submitted that the writ petition involving similar issue has already been entertained and interim order has been passed. In this connection, learned counsel for the petitioner has invited attention of this Court to order dated 18.08.2011 passed by a Bench of this Court in writ petition No.11779/2011 (s).
In view of submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and in view to maintain parity, it is directed that further proceedings in the departmental enquiry which has been initiated against the petitioner shall remain stayed till next date of hearing.
Let the writ petition be listed along with writ petitions No. 11779/2011, 5882/2010 and 9514/2010.
Certified copy as per rules.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RC Writ Petition No.1637/2013 08.02.2013 Mr. Manikant Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Mrs. Sharada Dubey, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondents.
With consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard finally.
In this writ petition, the petitioner has assailed the validity of communication dated 20.5.2011, by which his claim for appointment on compassionate basis has been rejected.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the mother of petitioner was working on the post of Lab Teacher in Government Indira Gandhi Home Science College. She died during course of employment i.e. on 30.9.2010. The petitioner was entirely dependent on her mother. Therefore, he submitted an application seeking appointment on compassionate ground. However, the application submitted by the petitioner was rejected by the order dated 20.5.2011 passed by the Principal of the college on the ground that the elder brother of the petitioner is already employed as government servant. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that aforesaid circular has been misinterpreted by the Principal while deciding the claim of the petitioner as the aforesaid circular provides that if a member of the family is employed in government service and residing separately, then another member of the family shall be entitled to appointment on compassionate basis. However, the aforesaid aspect has not been considered by the Principal. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he be granted permission to submit a fresh representation to the Commissioner Higher Education and he be directed to decide the representation submitted by the petitioner a fresh. On the other hand, learned Panel Lawyer submits that if the petitioner submits such a representation, the same shall be dealt with in accordance with law.
In view of submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and in the facts of the case, the order dated 20.5.2011 is quashed. The writ petition is disposed of with a direction that in case a fresh representation is submitted by the petitioner within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order passed today, the same shall be dealt with a fresh by the Commissioner Higher Education expeditiously preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of such a representation, by a speaking order.
Certified copy as per rules.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RC Writ Petition No.1663/2013 08.02.2013 Mr. V. P. Nema, learned counsel for the petitioner. Heard on the question of admission as well as interim relief.
On payment of process fee by registered post acknowledgment due within a period of one week, issue notice of the writ petition to the respondents No.1 to 6.
Notice on behalf of respondent No.7 is accepted by Kush Singh, Advocate.
Learned counsel for the respondent No.7 prays for and is granted three weeks time to file return.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RC Writ Petition No.1833/2013 08.02.2013 Mr. Kabir Giri, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Akhilesh Singh, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondents.
Heard.
In this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the validity of order dated 21.3.2011 by which the claim of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate basis has been rejected.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the father of the petitioner was employed as an Assistant Teacher, who expired on 8.8.1971. At the time of death of his father, petitioner was aged about 10 months. The petitioner after attaining the age of majority submitted an application seeking appointment on compassionate ground. The aforesaid application has been rejected by order dated 21.3.2011 on the ground that the application ought to have been filed within a period of 7 years. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the writ petition be disposed of with a direction to the Competent Authority to consider the application submitted by the petitioner afresh. On the other hand, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondents submits that the claim for appointment on compassionate appointment is highly belated and the impugned order does not suffer from any infirmity warranting interference of this Court.
I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. It is well settled in law that compassionate appointment being an exception to general rule of appointment can only be claimed in accordance with the terms of the policy. The object of providing compassionate appointment is to enable the family of the deceased to tide over sudden financial crisis. [See :
Punjab National Bank vs. Ashwani Kumar Taneja, (2007) 7 SCC 265.]. Admittedly, the father of the petitioner was employed as Assistant Teacher, who died on 8.8.1971.
The petitioner attaining the age of majority in the year 1990. Thereafter he submitted an application for appointment on compassionate basis, which has been rejected on 21.3.2011. The claim of the petitioner for compassionate basis is highly belated. If in such a case, appointment on compassionate basis is provided, the same shall be against the object of providing appointment on compassionate basis. At this point of time the claim for compassionate appointment can't be entertained specially in view of fact that no cogent explanation has been offered by the petitioner for inaction on his part from 1990 onwards. For the aforementioned reasons, I do not find any merit in the writ petition.
Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RC Writ Petition No.1802/2013 08.02.2013 Mr. Deepak Awasthy, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Heard.
On payment of process fee by registered post acknowledgment due within a period of one week, issue notice of the writ petition to the respondents.
Notices be made returnable within a period of four weeks.
In the meanwhile, the appointment of respondents No.3 and 4 shall be subject to the decision of the writ petition.
Certified copy as per rules.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RC Writ Petition No.6366/2000 07.02.2013 Parties through their counsel. As agreed to by learned counsel for the parties, let the writ petition be listed for final disposal at motion stage on 19th February, 2013.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RC Writ Petition No.16956/2012 07.02.2013 Mr. Swapnil Ganguly, leaned counsel for the petitioner.
Mr. Akhilesh Singh, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondents No.1 and 2.
Mr. Sudesh Verma, learned counsel for the respondents No.3 and 5.
Mr. Ajay Raizada, learned counsel for the respondent No.4.
Learned Panel Lawyer submitted that he has filed reply on behalf of respondents No.1 and 2.
However, the same is not on record. Office is directed to trace it and place it on record.
Let a copy of reply be supplied to learned counsel for the petitioner as well as respondents No.3 & 5 and respondent No. 4.
In view of the fact that the return has already been filed, no orders are required to be passed on I.A. No.1391/2013. Accordingly I.A. No.1391/2013 is disposed of.
Let rejoinder on behalf of the petitioner be filed within a period one week.
Let the writ petition be listed for final disposal at the motion stage on 18th February, 2013.
Interim order dated 05.10.2012 shall remain stayed till next date of hearing.
Certified copy as per rules.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RC Writ Petition No.18025/2012 07.02.2013 Parties through their counsel. Heard on I.A. No.1845/2013, an application for amendment.
Taking into account the nature of proposed amendment and for the reasons stated in the application, the aforesaid IA is allowed. Let necessary amendment be carried out during course of the day.
Rejoinder filed vide I.A. No.1847/2013 is taken on record.
Learned counsel for the respondents may file an additional reply within a period of two weeks, if so advised.
As agreed to by learned counsel for the parties, let the writ petition be listed on 25th February, 2013.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RC Writ Petition No.13330/2012 06.02.2013 Mr. Dinesh Upadhyay, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Mr. Piyush Dharmadhikari, learned Government Advocate for the respondents.
Heard.
In this writ petition, the petitioner inter-alia seeks a direction to the respondents to release the kit and to permit the petitioner to perform duties on the post of Home Guard Sainik.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that District Commandants Home Guards, Sehore by communication dated 19.9.2012 has made recommendation in favour of the petitioner and has forwarded the same to Director General, Home Guards, Madhya Pradesh but till date no decision has been taken in light of the said communication. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the writ petition be disposed of with a direction to the Director General Home Guards to take appropriate decision in the light of communication dated 19.9.2012 within a specific time limit. On the other hand, learned Government Advocate submitted that the suitable action shall be taken by the Director General Home Guards in accordance with law.
In view of submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and in the facts of the case, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to Director General Home Guards Madhya Pradesh to take decision in the light of communication dated 19.9.2012 expeditiously preferably within a period of six weeks from the date of production of the certified copy of the order passed today. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.
Certified copy as per rules.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RC.
Writ Petition No.2840/201106.02.2013 Mr. Deepak Awasthy, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Mr. Rajesh Tiwari, learned Government Advocate for the respondents.
Learned counsel for the respondents prays for and is granted two weeks' time to file an additional reply in light of order dated 10.12.2012.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RC ConC. No.1677/2012 06.02.2013 Mr. A.P. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Service of notice to respondents is awaited. Let the writ petition be listed in the second week of March, 2013.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RC Writ Petition No.15475/2012 06.02.2013 Parties through their counsel. Heard on I.A. No.13131/2012, an application for amendment.
For the reasons stated in the application, the aforesaid IA is allowed.
Let necessary amendment be carried out within a period of one week.
As prayed, let the writ petition be listed along with ConC. No.1677/2012.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RC Writ Petition No.15280/2012 06.02.2013 None for the petitioner even when the matter is taken up in the second round.
It appears that the petitioner is not interested in prosecuting the petition. Accordingly, the same is dismissed for want of prosecution.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RC Writ Petition No.3699/2012 06.02.2013 Parties through their counsel. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he has filed rejoinder on 4.2.2013. However, the same is not on record.
Office is directed to trace it and place it on record. Learned counsel for the respondent No.6 prays for and is granted two weeks' time to file additional reply.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RC Writ Petition No.4136/2012 06.02.2013 Learned counsel for the respondents pray and are granted two weeks' time to file return.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RC Writ Petition No.8211/2012 06.02.2013 Let rejoinder on behalf of the petitioner be filed within a period of three weeks, if so advised.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RC Writ Petition No.8588/2012 06.02.2013 Rejoinder filed vide I.A. No.14321/2012 is taken on record.
Accordingly, I.A. No.14321/2012 is allowed. Learned counsel for the respondent No.3 prays for and is granted two weeks' time to file an additional return.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RC Writ Petition No.8995/2012 06.02.2013 Mr. D. K. Dixit, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Vivek Sharma, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondents prays for and is granted two weeks' time to comply order dated 27.6.2012 and to produce the original file.
Interim order dated 27.6.2012 shall continue till next date of hearing.
Let a copy of this order be supplied to Mr. Vivek Sharma, learned Panel Lawyer during course of the day.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RC CONC. No.1688/2012 06.02.2013 Mr. D. K. Dixit, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Vivek Sharma, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondents.
Let reply on behalf of respondents be filed within a period two weeks.
Let the petition be listed along with writ petition No.8995/2012.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RC Writ Petition No.9214/2012 06.02.2013 Mr. N.S. Ruprah, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Vivek Sharma, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondents.
Learned counsel for the petitioner once again prays for adjournment in order to enable him to file rejoinder.
Let the writ petition be listed in the week commencing 25th February, 2013.
Interim order dated 2.7.2012 shall continue till next date of hearing.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RC Writ Petition No.9314/2012 06.02.2013 Learned counsel for the respondent prays for and is granted three weeks' time to file return.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RC Writ Petition No.12323/2012 06.02.2013 Mr. S.R. Kushwaha, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Mr. Vivek Sharma, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent No.1.
Mr. Neeraj Singh, learned counsel for the respondent No.3.
Mr. R.B. Tiwari, learned counsel for the respondent No.4.
Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks leave of this Court to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to approach the High Power Castes Scrutiny Committee with regard to his grievance.
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as aforesaid.
Certified copy as per rules.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RC Writ Petition No.12489/2012 06.02.2013 Mr. Praveen Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Mr. Vivek Sharma, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondents prays for and is granted two weeks' time to file reply to I.A. No.1015/2013.
Let the writ petition be listed for further orders in the week commencing 18th February, 2013.
In case, the reply to I.A. No.1015/2013 is not filed till next date of hearing, the prayer for interim relief shall be considered.
Let a copy of this order be supplied to Mr. Vivek Sharma, Panel Lawyer during course of the day.
Interim order dated 16.8.2012 shall continue till next date of hearing.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RC Writ Petition No.12833/2012 06.02.2013 Parties through their counsel. Documents filed vide I.A. No.1016/2013 are taken on record.
Accordingly, I.A. No.1016/2013 is allowed.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RC M.C.C. No.130/2013 06.02.2013 Mr. Manish Awasthy, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Heard.
This is an application has been filed for restoration of writ petition No.19310/2012 which was dismissed for want of prosecution on 07.01.2013.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on 7.1.2013 when the matter was called out for hearing on the question of admission and stay, the earlier counsel Shri B.K. Shrivastava engaged by the petitioner did not appear to address the court. The application for restoration is duly supported by an affidavit. Even otherwise, it is well settled in law that for the fault on the part of the counsel, party should not be penalized [See : Rafiq and another Vs. Munshilal and another, AIR 1981 SC 1400 and Secretary, Department of Horticulture, Chandigarh and another Vs. Raghu Raj, AIR 2009 SC 514.] For the aforementioned reason, I find sufficient cause for restoration of the writ petition No.19310/2012 is made out. Accordingly, writ petition No.19310/2012 is restored to file.
M.C.C. is allowed.
Certified copy as per rules.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RC Writ Petition No.1885/2013 06.02.2013 Mr. D. K. Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Mr. Piyush Dharmadhikari, learned Government Advocate for the respondents.
Heard.
In this writ petition, the petitioner inter-alia seeks a direction to the respondents to pay the salary to the petitioner for a period from 31.8.2010 to 5.1.2012 along with interest.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner be granted liberty to submit a representation to the Competent Authority with regard to his grievance and the Competent Authority be directed to decide the representation submitted by the petitioner expeditiously. On the other hand, learned Government Advocate submitted that in case, such a representation is submitted by the petitioner, the same shall be dealt with in accordance with law.
In view of submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and in the facts of the case, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction that in case, the petitioner submits a representation with regard to his grievance within a period of 10 days from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order passed today to the Competent Authority, the Competent Authority shall consider and decide the same within a period of two months from the date of receipt of such a representation, by a speaking order. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.
Certified copy as per rules.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RC.
Writ Petition No.1842/201306.02.2013 Shri Madhur Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Heard on the question of admission and interim relief.
On payment of PF by registered post with acknowledgment due within a period of one week, issue notice of the writ petition to the respondents.
Notices be made returnable within a period of four weeks.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that despite the interim order dated 7.7.2003 passed in writ petition No.3777/2003, the respondents have issued the impugned show cause notice dated 03.12.2012. It is further submitted that the writ petition involving similar issue has been entertained and interim relief has been granted.
In view of the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and with a view to maintain parity, it is directed that no final order shall be passed in pursuance to notice dated 03.12.2012.
Let the writ petition be listed along with writ petitions No. 21242/2012 and 20937/2012 for analogous hearing.
Certified copy as per rules.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RC.
Writ Petition No.1854/201306.02.2013 Mr. Sanjay Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Heard on the question of admission. On payment of PF by registered post with acknowledgment due within a period of one week, issue notice of the writ petition to the respondents.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RC Writ Petition No.1871/2013 06.02.2013 Mr. R.L. Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner. Heard on the question of admission. On payment of PF by registered post with acknowledgment due within a period of one week, issue notice of the writ petition to the respondents.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RC Writ Petition No.1877/2013 06.02.2013 Mr. Arvind Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Heard on the question of admission. On payment of PF by registered post with acknowledgment due within a period of one week, issue notice of the writ petition to the respondents.
Notices be made returnable within a period of two weeks.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RC Writ Petition No.1881/2013 06.02.2013 Mr. A. M. Trivedi, learned Senior Counsel with Mr. Ajay Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Heard on the question of admission as well as interim relief.
On payment of PF by registered post with acknowledgment due within a period of one week, issue notice of the writ petition to the respondents.
Notices be made returnable within a period of four weeks.
Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order dated 21.12.2012 has been passed without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and in violation of para 270 of Madhya Pradesh Police Regulations. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the decision of this Court in case of Vikram Singh Rana Vs. State of M.P. and others, 2007 (1) M.P.L.J 95.
In view of submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and in the facts of the case, it is directed that the enquiry proceeding initiated against the petitioner pursuant to order dated 7.11.2012 shall remain stayed till next date of hearing.
Certified copy as per rules.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RC M.C.C. No.146/2013 06.02.2013 Mr. Kishore Roy, learned counsel for the petitioners.
Ms. Trupti Jadhav, learned counsel for the respondents No.1 and 2.
This MCC has been filed for restoration of writ petition No.1849/2007 which was dismissed for want of prosecution on 23.01.2013.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that on account of oversight, he could not trace the case in the cause list and therefore, could not appear before this Court when the case was taken up for hearing.
Learned counsel for the respondents No.1 and 2submitted that previously also in the year of 2009, the writ petition was dismissed for want of prosecution. Therefore, the application for restoration of W.P. No.1849/2007 be dismissed.
I have considered the respective submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. The application for restoration is duly supported by an affidavit. Even otherwise, it is well settled in law that for the fault on the part of the counsel, party should not be penalized [See : Rafiq and another Vs. Munshilal and another, AIR 1981 SC 1400 and Secretary, Department of Horticulture, Chandigarh and another Vs. Raghu Raj, AIR 2009 SC 514.] For the aforementioned reason, I find sufficient cause for restoration of the writ petition No. 1849/2007 is made out. Accordingly, W.P. No.1849/2007 is restored to file.
M.C.C. is allowed.
Certified copy as per rules.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RC Writ Petition No.18643/2010 06.02.2013 Mr. P.K. Kaurav, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Mr. Sunil Pandey, learned counsel for the respondents.
With consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard finally.
In this writ petition under Article 227 of Constitution of India, the petitioner has assailed the validity of award dated 15.05.2010 passed by the Labour Court by which it has directed the petitioner to reinstate the respondents alongwith 50% backwages.
Learned counsel for the petitioner while inviting attention of this Court to the statement of the respondents, which are cumulatively marked as Annexure P/6 submitted that the respondents in their statements recorded before the Labour Court have nowhere stated that they were unemployed during the relevant period. It is further submitted that initial burden lay on the respondents to plead the factum of unemployment. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the decision in cases of Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan and another Vs. S.C. Sharma, (2005) 2 SCC 363, U.P. State Brassware Corpn. Ltd. and another Vs. Uday Narain Pandey, (2006) 1 SCC 479 and Mahboob Deepak Vs. Nagar Panchayat, Gajraula and another, (2008) 1 SCC 575.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that in the statement of claim, which is not on record before this Court, the respondents have averred that they were unemployed. However, learned counsel for the respondents was unable to point out from the statement of respondents the fact with regard to their unemployment during relevant time.
It is well settled in law that initial burden to plea the factum of unemployment lies on the workman and the onus to plead and prove unemployment is on the workman. Thereafter the onus shifts on the employer. In the instant case, the respondents did not lead any evidence to prove the factum of unemployment. Therefore, the Labour Court in the facts of the case, grossly erred awarding the benefit of backwages to the extent of 50%.
In view of preceding analysis, the impugned award, so far as it relates to grant of 50% backwages to respondents, is hereby quashed. In result, the writ petition is partly allowed.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RC Writ Petition No.360/1996 05.02.2013 Mr. T.K. Khadka, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Mr. Anoop Nair, learned counsel for the respondent.
Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for adjournment on the ground that the arguing counsel Mr. Rajendra Tiwari, learned Senior Counsel has suffered bereavement in the family.
As prayed, let the writ petition be listed after a week.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RC Writ Petition No.3377/1997 05.02.2013 Mr. T.K. Khadka, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Mr. Anoop Nair, learned counsel for the respondents.
Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for adjournment on the ground that the arguing counsel Mr. Rajendra Tiwari, learned Senior Counsel has suffered bereavement in the family.
As prayed, let the writ petition be listed after a week.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RC Writ Petition No.1711/2013 (s) 04.02.2013 Mr. Pranay Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Mr. Piyush Dharmadhikari, learned Government Advocate for the respondents.
Heard.
In this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the illegality and validity of order dated 04.1.2013, by which the respondent No.2 had withdrawn the drawing and disbursing powers of the petitioner and the same have been temporarily conferred upon the Project Administrator Integrated Tribal Development Project Tamia till further orders.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was given drawing and disbursing powers vide order dated 26.10.2012 in accordance with Rule 125 contained in Part-I of Madhya Pradesh Treasury Rules. However, the same has been withdrawn by the impugned order without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has approached this Court. It is further submitted that the petitioner be granted permission to submit a representation to the Commissioner, and the Commissioner be directed to consider and decide the representation which shall be submitted by him within a fixed time limit. On the other hand, learned Government Advocate submitted that in case, such a representation is submitted by the petitioner, the same shall be dealt with expeditiously in accordance with law.
In view of submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and in the facts of the case, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction that in case the petitioner submits a representation within a period of one week from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order passed today, the Commissioner shall consider and decide the same within a period of four weeks from receipt of such a representation, by a speaking order. Needless to state that the Commissioner shall afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well as to all necessary parties. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.
Certified copy as per rules.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RC.
Writ Petition No.1821/201304.02.2013 Mr. G.P. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Mr. Lalit Joglekar, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondents.
Heard.
In this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the validity of order dated 18.1.2013, by which the petitioner has been transferred from Jabalpur to Bhopal.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a stenographer and in mid academic session he has been transferred to Bhopal. It is further submitted that in case the order of transfer is carried out by the petitioner, the studies of his children would be adversely affected, and nobody has been posted in place of the petitioner. It is also urged that the being aggrieved by the order of transfer the petitioner has submitted representation. On the other hand, learned Panel Lawyer submitted that the representation submitted by the petitioner shall be dealt with in accordance with law.
I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and taking into account the peculiar facts of the case, I am inclined to dispose of the writ petition with a direction to the Competent Authority to consider and decide the representation submitted by the petitioner expeditiously preferably within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of the order passed today, by a speaking order. Till the representation submitted by the petitioner is decided, the petitioner shall be permitted to continue at his present place of posting.
Certified copy as per rules.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RC.
Writ Petition No.1820/201304.02.2013 Mr. Shailesh Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Heard on the question of admission as well as interim relief.
On payment of PF by registered post with acknowledgment due within a period of one week, issue notice of the writ petition to the respondents.
Notices be made returnable within a period of four weeks.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the services of the petitioner have been terminated without affording an opportunity of hearing, contrary to law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in case of Mission Director, RCH/NRHM Vs. Ranjit Jain and another, 2011 M.P.L.S.R. 361.
In view of aforesaid submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner, the effect and operation of order dated 16.01.2013 shall remain stayed till next date of hearing.
Certified copy as per rules.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RC Writ Petition No.1827/2013 04.02.2013 Mr. Hemant Shrivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Heard on the question of admission. On payment of PF by registered post with acknowledgment due within a period of one week, issue notice of the writ petition to the respondents.
Notices be made returnable within a period of four weeks.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RC Writ Petition No.6493/2012 01.02.2013 Mr. Amit Seth, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Piyush Dharmadhikar, learned Government Advocate prays for time to enable him to file reply.
The aforesaid prayer is opposed by learned counsel for the petitioner on the ground that vide order dated 10.12.2012, time was granted by way of last indulgence upto 4th February, 2013. However, the reply has not been filed. Therefore, the matter be heard.
However, subject to payment of cost of Rs.2,000/- to the petitioner by next date of hearing, the respondents are granted two weeks' time to file return.
Let the writ petition be listed for further orders on 18.02.2013.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RC Writ Petition No.20832/2012 04.02.2013 Mr. Shreyas Pandit, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Mr. Lalit Joglekar, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondents.
Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks leave of this Court to withdraw the writ petition.
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn.
Certified copy as per rules.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RC Writ Petition No.1403/2013 04.02.2013 Mr. Pushpendra Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Heard on the question of admission. On payment of PF by registered post with acknowledgment due within a period of one week, issue notice of the writ petition to the respondents.
Notices be made returnable within a period of four weeks.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RC Writ Petition No.19904/2012 04.02.2013 None for the petitioner even when the matter is taken up in the second round.
It appears that the petitioner is not interested in prosecuting the petition. Accordingly, the same is dismissed for want of prosecution.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RC Writ Petition No.3492/2003 04.02.2013 Smt. S. Gautam, learned counsel for the petitioners.
None for the respondents.
Let the writ petition be listed in course of next week.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RC Writ Petition No.4001/2003 04.02.2013 Smt. S. Gautam, learned counsel for the petitioners.
None for the respondents.
Let the writ petition be listed in course of next week.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RC Writ Petition No.4994/2012 (s) 04.02.2013 Mr. Jitendra Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Mr. Piyush Dharmadhikari, learned Government Advocate once again prays for adjournment in order to enable him to seek instructions in the light of order dated 23.1.2013.
The aforesaid prayer is opposed by Mr. Jitendra Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner.
However, in the interest of justice, by way of last indulgence further time is granted to learned Government Advocate to seek instructions in the matter.
As prayed, let the writ petition be listed on 6.2.2013.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RC Writ Petition No.5345/2012 04.02.2013 Mr. Jitendra Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Mr. Madhur Shukla, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that arguing counsel is out of station.
As prayed, let the writ petition be listed after one week.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RC Writ Petition No.6006/2012 04.02.2013 Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for adjournment on the ground that the arguing counsel has suffered bereavement in the family.
As prayed, let the writ petition be listed in the course of next week.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RC Writ Petition No.6512/2012 04.02.2013 Learned Government Advocate for the respondents prays for and is granted two weeks' time to file the return.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RC Writ Petition No.8359/2012 04.02.2013 Learned Government Advocate for the respondents prays for and is granted two weeks' time to file the return.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RC Writ Petition No.8472/2012 04.02.2013 Mr. Piyush Dharmadhikari, learned Government Advocate for the respondents No.1 to 3 prays for and is granted three weeks' time to file return.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RC Writ Petition No.8493/2012 04.02.2013 Parties through their counsel. Rejoinder filed vide I.A. No.1272/2013 is taken on record.
Accordingly, I.A. No.1272/2013 is allowed.
-------------------------His Lordship's dictation to be taken in the matter.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RC Writ Petition No.8663/2012 04.02.2013 Mr. Piyush Dharmadhikari, learned Government Advocate prays for and is granted four weeks' time to file return.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RC Writ Petition No.8677/2012 04.02.2013 Parties through their counsel. Documents filed vide I.A. No.1732/2013 are taken on record.
Accordingly, I.A. No.1732/2013 is allowed. As prayed, let the writ petition be listed in course of next week for consideration of prayer for interim relief.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RC Writ Petition No.17820/2012 04.02.2013 Mr. Alok Pathak, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Mr. Rajesh Tiwari, learned Government Advocate for the respondent No.1.
Mr. S.S. Bisen, learned counsel for the respondent No.2.
Ms. Bhavana Walimbe, Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat, Chartarpur is present before this Court.
Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 submits that in compliance of order dated 10.01.2013, the respondent No.2 namely Bhavana Walimbe, Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat, Chattarpur is present before this Court. Reply has also been filed on 31.1.2013.
With consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard finally.
In this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the validity of order dated 12.10.2011 by which the petitioner has been placed under suspension.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that till today, no progress has been made in the departmental enquiry, except for issuance of the charge-sheet.
On the other hand, learned Government Advocate for the respondents submits that as per instructions of the General Administration Department, the departmental enquiry shall be concluded as expeditiously as possible.
In view of submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and in the facts of the case, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to conclude the departmental enquiry expeditiously, preferably within a period of four months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order passed today. Needless to state that the respondents shall afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well as to all necessary parties. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.
Certified copy as per rules.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RC Writ Petition No.8680/2012 04.02.2013 Mr. A.K. Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner prays for and is granted one week's time to file an application for urgent hearing.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RC Writ Petition No.8866/2012 04.02.2013 Mr. Piyush Dharmadhikari, learned Government Advocate for the respondents No.1 to 3 prays for and is granted two weeks' further time to file return.
Let the writ petition be listed in the week commencing 18th February, 2013.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RC Writ Petition No.9163/2012 04.02.2013 Mr. Piyush Dharmadhikari, learned Government Advocate prays for and is granted three weeks' time to file return.
Interim order dated 2.7.2012 shall continue till next date of hearing.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RC Writ Petition No.9614/2012 04.02.2013 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he does not want to file any rejoinder.
Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for and is granted one week's time to file an application for urgent hearing.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RC Writ Petition No.9994/2012 04.02.2013 Mr. Siddharth Gulatee, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Let reply on behalf of the respondents be filed within a period of four weeks.
Let the writ petition be listed for further orders in the week commencing 11th of March, 2013.
Interim order dated 6.7.2012 shall continue till next date of hearing.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RC Writ Petition No.10259/2012 04.02.2013 Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for and is granted three weeks' time to file rejoinder.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RC Writ Petition No.11023/2012 04.02.2013 Mr. Piyush Dharmadhikari, learned Government Advocate prays for and is granted three weeks' time to file return.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RC Writ Petition No.12186/2012 04.02.2013 Mr. Piyush Dharmadhikari, learned Government Advocate prays for and is granted four weeks' time to file return.
Let the writ petition listed along with writ petition No.13636/2011.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RC Writ Petition No.12970/2012 (s) 04.02.2013 Mr. K.S. Wadhwa, learned counsel for the respondent is directed to produce result of the petitioner in a seal cover in compliance of order dated 16.8.2012 on next date of hearing.
As prayed, let the writ petition be listed in the week commencing 18th February, 2013.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RC Writ Petition No.1761/2013 04.02.2013 Mr. J.P. Pandey, Advocate with Mr. Ravendra Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Mr. Piyush Dharmadhikari, learned Government Advocate for the respondents.
With consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard finally.
In this writ petition, the petitioner has inter-alia challenged the validity of order dated 28.12.2012 by which the representation submitted by the petitioner in compliance of order passed by a Bench of this Court in writ petition No.15333/2012 has been considered and the order of transfer of the petitioner has been modified and the petitioner has been posted at Sidhi instead of Jabalpur Facts giving rise to filing of the writ petition briefly stated are that by the order dated 15.7.2012, the petitioner, who was working as Revenue Inspector in Rewa in the office of Commissioner, was transferred from Rewa to Jabalpur. The petitioner challenged the aforesaid order by filing a writ petition No.15333/2012, which was disposed of by order dated 14.9.2012 with a liberty to the petitioner to take recourse to the departmental remedies available to him. Thereafter, the petitioner once again approached this Court by filing writ petition No.20088/2012 (s), which was disposed of by a Bench of this Court vide order dated 03.12.2012 with a direction to decide the representation submitted by the petitioner within a period of four weeks. It was further directed that till the representation submitted by the petitioner is decided, status quo shall be maintained. The representation submitted by the petitioner was considered in the light of directions issued by a Bench of this Court in writ petition No.15333/2012. Before the Commissioner, Land Records and Settlement, the petitioner has neither filed any documents with regard to his ailment nor has furnished the certificate issued by the medical board. However, taking into account, the recommendation made by the Commissioner, Rewa Division, Rewa, the representation submitted by the petitioner was considered sympathetically and the place of posting of the petitioner was changed from Jabalpur to Sidhi. Accordingly, the petitioner was directed to be posted at Sidhi instead of Jabalpur. In the aforesaid factual backdrop, the petitioner has approached this Court.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that by order dated 28.12.2012, the petitioner has been subjected to transfer for the second time, which is contrary to policy of transfer. It is further submitted that the GPF pass-book has been sent to Jabalpur yet he has been transferred to Sidhi. It is further submitted that the petitioner is required to undergo a surgery for removal of kidney and therefore, he is in need of finances.
On the other hand, learned Government Advocate submits that the representation submitted by the petitioner was sympathetically considered and his place of posting was changed to Sidhi, which is situate at a distance of 85 Kms from his present place of posting i.e. Rewa. It is further submitted that the GPF pass-book of the petitioner shall be sent expeditiously to Sidhi, so that the petitioner can undergo surgery for removal of the kidney.
I have considered the respective submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. It is well settled in law that transfer is an incidence of service. Which employee should be posted where is a matter for the appropriate authority to decide. Until and unless the transfer is vitiated by mala fide or is made in violation of any statutory provisions, the Court cannot interfere with the order of transfer. [See: Union of India and Others v. S.L. Abbas, (1993) 4 SCC 357, State Bank of India Vs. Anjan Sanyal and Others, 2001 (5) SCC 508, Government of Andhra Pradesh Vs. G. Venkata Ratnam, 2008 (9) SCC 345, State of Haryana and Others Vs. Kashmir Singh and Another, 2010 (13) SCC 306]. Similarly in Public Services Tribunal Bar Association v. State of U.P. and another, (2003) 4 SCC 104, once again dealing with the scope of judicial review in the matter of transfer, Supreme Court reiterated that transfer is an incidence of service and normally should not be interfered with by the Court. If any administrative guidelines regarding transfer of an employee are violated, at best the same confers the right on the employee to approach the higher authorities for redressal of their grievance. Transfer made contrary to policy can also not be interfered with. Similar view has been taken in the case of State of U.P. And Others Vs. Gobardhan Lal, 2004 (11) SCC 402.
From perusal of the order dated 28.12.2012, it is apparent that the Commissioner, Land Records and Settlement, has considered the representation submitted by the petitioner sympathetically and has modified the order of transfer of the petitioner and has posted him to a nearby place i.e. Sidhi which is at a distance of 85 kms from present place of posting i.e. Rewa. Therefore, the aforesaid order cannot be termed as second transfer. No case for interference in the order of transfer is made out. So far as the grievance of the petitioner that his GPF pass-book has not been sent from Jabalpur, it is directed that the GPF pass-book shall be sent to Sidhi, in order to enable the petitioner to undergo surgery for removal of the kidney.
With the aforesaid directions, the writ petition stands disposed of.
Certified copy as per rules.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RC Writ Petition No.19793/2012 04.02.2013 Mr. Sanjay K. Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has already been appointment on the post of Training Officer Fitter. Therefore, the petition has been rendered infructuous by efflux of time.
Accordingly, the same is dismissed.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RC Writ Petition No.19599/2012 04.02.2013 Parties through their counsel. Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for and is granted three weeks' time to file rejoinder.
Let the writ petition be listed for further orders in the week commencing 25.2.2013.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RC Writ Petition No.20504/2012 04.02.2013 Parties through their counsel. Heard on I.A. No.16197/2012, an application for amendment.
For the reasons stated in the application, the aforesaid IA is allowed.
Let necessary amendment be carried out within a period of 3 days.
On payment of process fees by registered post acknowledgment due within a period of one week, issue notice of the petition to the newly added respondent No.5.
Rejoinder filed vide I.A. No.16165/2012 is taken on record.
Documents filed vide I.A. No.16257/2012, I.A. No.16624/2012 and I.A. No.914/2013 are taken on record.
Accordingly, aforesaid I.As. are allowed.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RC Writ Petition No.21467/2012 04.02.2013 Mr. Harpreet Ruprah, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Notice is accepted on behalf of respondents by Mr. Anoop Nair, Advocate.
Learned counsel for the respondents prays for and is granted three weeks' time to file reply.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RC Writ Petition No.21551/2012 04.02.2013 Parties through their counsel. Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for and is granted one week's time to file reply to I.A. No.1577/2013.
Learned counsel for the petitioner shall also address the Court on the question of locus of petitioner to challenge the impugned order in the instant writ petition.
Let the writ petition be listed for consideration on I.A. No.1577/2013 on 13th February, 2013.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RC Writ Petition No.21883/2012 04.02.2013 Learned counsel for the respondents pray for and are granted four weeks' time to file reply.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RC Writ Petition No.786/2013 04.02.2013 Mr. Rajesh Tiwari, learned Government Advocate for the petitioners.
Heard on the question of admission as well as I.A. No.597/2013.
Learned counsel for the petitioners seeks leave of this Court to withdraw I.A. No.596/2013.
Accordingly, the same is dismissed as withdrawn. On payment of process fees by registered post acknowledgment due within a period of one week, issue notice of the petition to the respondent.
Notice be made returnable within a period of four weeks.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Labour Court grossly erred in exercising powers under section 33- (C) (2) of Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 in as much as claim of the respondent was not admitted by the petitioner.
In view of submission made by learned counsel for the petitioners and in facts of the case, it is directed that execution of the impugned order 30.7.2012 passed by the Labour Court shall remain stayed till next date of hearing.
Certified copy as per rules.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RC Writ Petition No.12901/2012 01.02.2013 Mr. Shailesh Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mrs. D.K. Bohrey, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondents.
With consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard finally.
Petitioner's father who was posted as Accountant Under the East Forest Division, Sidhi died during the course of employment on 16.09.2000, as is evident from the death certificate Annexure P/1. After the death of his father, petitioner claimed compassionate appointment and submitted an application Annexure P/2.
The grievance of the petitioner is that inspite of the fact that the application has been submitted long back, yet no action in the matter has been taken.
Keeping in view the grievance of the petitioner, for the present without entering into the controversy on merit, the respondents are directed to consider and decide the representation/application submitted by the petitioner (Annexure P/2) in accordance with scheme applicable in the respondents' establishment and decide it by a speaking order within a period of three months from the date of passing of the order passed today and shall communicate the decision to the petitioner. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits for the case.
With the aforesaid direction, the writ petition stand disposed of.
Certified copy as per rules.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RM Writ Petition No.2282/2012 01.02.2013 Mr. S.R. Tamrakar, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Mr. S.D. Mishra, learned counsel for the respondent No.6.
Mr. D.S. Baghel, learned counsel for the respondent No.8.
Learned counsel for the respondents No. 6 and 8submit that they do not want to file any affidavit.
As agreed to by learned counsel for the parties, let the writ petition be listed for final disposal at the motion stage on 18th February, 2013.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RC Review Petition No.655/2012 01.02.2013 None for the petitioner even when the matter is taken up in the second round.
Mr. L.S. Singh, learned Senior Counsel with Mr. J.L. Soni, learned counsel for the respondent.
It appears that the petitioner is not interested in prosecuting the petition. Accordingly, the same is dismissed for want of prosecution.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RC Writ Petition No.1168/2013 01.02.2013 Mr. Manoj Rajak, learned counsel for the petitioner. As prayed, let the writ petition be listed after one week.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RC Writ Petition No.12960/2012 01.02.2013 Mr. Pankaj Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Mrs. Sharada Dubey, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondents.
Heard.
In this writ petition, the petitioner inter-alia seeks a direction to the respondents to regularise his service.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was employed on 01.04.1987 on daily wages basis. Since then the petitioner is working as Choukidar on daily wage basis. It is submitted that the services of junior to the petitioner have been regularised. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that petitioner be permitted to submit a representation to the Competent Authority with regard to his claim for regularization and the Competent Authority be directed to consider and decide the representation submitted by the petitioner. On the other hand learned Panel Lawyer submitted that if the petitioner files such a representation, the same shall be dealt with in accordance with the law.
In view of submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner and in the facts of the case, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction that in case, the petitioner submits a representation, the Competent Authority shall consider and decide the representation submitted by the petitioner expeditiously preferably within a period of two months from the date of receipt of such a representation. Needless to state that the Competent Authority shall decide the representation by a speaking order. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.
Certified copy as per rules.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RC.
Writ Petition No.5219/201201.02.2013 Learned counsel for the parties jointly submitted that the controversy involved in the instant writ petition is not similar to that of the controversy involved in the W.P. No.17819/2011 (s).
In view of aforesaid statement, the instant writ petition is de-linked from W.P. No.17819/2011.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RC Writ Petition No.5210/2012 01.02.2013 Learned counsel for the parties jointly submitted that the controversy involved in the instant writ petition is not similar to that of the controversy involved in the W.P. No.17819/2011 (s).
In view of aforesaid statement, the instant writ petition is de-linked from W.P. No.17819/2011.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RC Writ Petition No.5206/2012 01.02.2013 Learned counsel for the parties jointly submitted that the controversy involved in the instant writ petition is not similar to that of the controversy involved in the W.P. No.17819/2011 (s).
In view of aforesaid statement, the instant writ petition is de-linked from W.P. No.17819/2011.
Let the order dated 31.10.2012 be complied with within a period of one week.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RC Writ Petition No.21196/2011 01.02.2013 Learned counsel for the parties jointly submitted that the controversy involved in the instant writ petition is not similar to that of the controversy involved in the W.P. No.17819/2011 (s).
In view of aforesaid statement, the instant writ petition is de-linked from W.P. No.17819/2011.
Let I.A. No.8984/2012 be listed for consideration in the last week of February, 2013.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RC Writ Petition No.17819/2011 01.02.2013 Parties through their counsel. Heard on I.A. No.1173/2013, an application for amendment.
Taking into account the nature of proposed amendment and for the reasons stated in the application, I.A. No.1173/2013 is allowed.
Let necessary amendment be carried out within a period of three working days.
Learned Senior Counsel for the respondents submitted that he has filed I.A. No.3935/2012, an application for vacating stay.
Let I.A. No.3935/2012 be listed for consideration on 11.2.2013.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RC Writ Petition No.7800/2012 01.02.2013 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he does not want to file rejoinder.
Interim order dated 2.1.2013 shall continue till next date of hearing.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RC Writ Petition No.8864/2012 01.02.2013 Mr. Praveen Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Ms. Sharada Dubey, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondents once again prays for adjournment in order to enable her to file return.
The aforesaid prayer is opposed by learned counsel for the petitioner on the ground that on 2.1.2013, three week's time was granted to respondents to file the return . It is further submitted that there is stoppage of 50% of pension of the petitioner, due to which he is suffering financial crisis.
However, in the interest of justice, by way of last indulgence, two weeks' further time is granted to learned counsel for the respondents to file return.
Let the writ petition be listed in the week commencing 18th February, 2013.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RC Writ Petition No.9193/2012 01.02.2013 Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for and is granted three weeks' time to file rejoinder.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RC Writ Petition No.9284/2012 01.02.2013 Mr. Vivek Rusia, learned counsel for the petitioner. Ms. Sharada Dubey, learned counsel for the respondent.
In this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the validity of order 15.6.2012 by which he was transferred.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has expired.
In view of aforesaid statement, nothing survives for adjudication of the writ petition. Accordingly, the same is dismissed as infructuous.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RC Writ Petition No.9904/2012 01.02.2013 Mr. Manoj Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks leave of this Court to withdraw the writ petition with a liberty to file a fresh petition.
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as aforesaid.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RC Writ Petition No.9932/2012 01.02.2013 Ms. Sharada Dubey, learned counsel for the respondents No.1 to 5 prays for and is granted three weeks' time to file return.
Interim order dated 18.7.2012 shall continue till next date of hearing.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RC Writ Petition No.12423/2012 01.02.2013 Parties through their counsel. As agreed to by learned counsel for the parties, let the writ petition be listed for final disposal at the motion stage on 11th of February, 2013.
Interim order dated 16.8.2012 shall continue till next date of hearing.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RC Writ Petition No.12807/2012 01.02.2013 Document filed vide I.A. No.11511/2012 is taken on record.
Accordingly, I.A. No.11511/2012 is allowed to aforesaid extent only.
Learned counsel for the respondent No.4 submits that he has filed the reply today itself. However, the same is not on record.
Office is directed to trace it and place it on record.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RC Writ Petition No.13224/2012 01.02.2013 Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for and is granted two weeks' time to file rejoinder.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RC Writ Petition No.13257/2012 01.02.2013 Mr. Praveen Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner.
On payment of process fee by registered post acknowledgment due within a period of one week, issue notice of the writ petition to the respondents.
Ms. Indu Pandey, learned counsel for the respondents No.4 and 5 submitted that the return has been filed on behalf of respondents No.4 and 5.
In the meanwhile, appointment if any, made on the post of Production Assistant shall be subject to the decision of the writ petition.
As prayed, let the writ petition be listed alongwith writ petition Nos. 12939/2012 (s), 13104/2012 (s), 13122/2012 (s?), 13124/2012 (s), 13132/2012 (s) and 7443/2012.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RC Writ Petition No.13456/2012 01.02.2013 Learned counsel for the respondents prays for and is granted two weeks' time to file the return.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RC Writ Petition No.13460/2012 01.02.2013 Mr. S.R. Tamrakar, learned counsel for the petitioners.
Ms. Sharada Dubey, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondents prays for and is granted three weeks' time to file the return.
Let the writ petition be listed in the week commencing 25th February, 2013.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RC Writ Petition No.13479/2012 01.02.2013 Parties through their counsel. Documents filed vide I.A. No.13459/2012 is taken on record.
Let the writ petition be listed for final disposal at the motion stage on 25th February, 2013.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RC Writ Petition No.13494/2012 01.02.2013 Mr. Rohit Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner. Ms. Sharada Dubey, learned counsel for the respondents prays for and is granted further three weeks' time to file return.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RC Writ Petition No.13815/2012 01.02.2013 Mr. D.K. Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Ms. Sharada Dubey, learned counsel for the respondents No.1 to 4 prays for and is granted three weeks' time to file return.
Learned counsel for the respondent No.5 submitted that he does not want to file the reply and want to argue the case.
Interim order dated 28.8.2012 shall continue till next date of hearing.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RC Writ Petition No.1556/2013 01.02.2013 Mr. V.K. Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Mr. Rajesh Tiwari, learned Government Advocate for the respondents.
Heard.
In this writ petition, the petitioner has assailed the validity of order dated 13.7.2012 by which the petitioner has been transferred from Nagar Parishad Hanumana to Nagar Parishad Chakghat.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the President-in-Council has passed a resolution for cancellation of transfer of the petitioner to the Commissioner Urban Administration & Development, Bhopal. However, no decision has been taken on the said resolution by the Commissioner. However, nobody has been posted in place of the petitioner. It is further submitted that the writ petition be disposed of with a direction to the Commissioner to take the decision in light of resolution which has been passed by President-in-Council expeditiously. On the other hand, learned Government Advocate submitted that suitable action shall be taken on the said resolution in accordance with law.
In view of submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent No.2 namely the Commissioner to take decision in accordance with law in the light of resolution dated 28.07.2012 passed by the President-in-Council of Nagar Parishad Hanumana within a period of two months from the date of order passed today, by a speaking order. Taking into account that nobody has been posted on the place of the petitioner, till the decision is taken by the Commissioner, petitioner shall be allowed to work at present place of posting. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.
Certified copy as per rules.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RC.
Writ Petition No.1542/201301.02.2013 Mr. Shreyas Dharmadhikari, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Mr. Rajesh Tiwari, learned Government Advocate for the respondents.
With consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard finally.
In this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the validity of order dated 14.1.2013 by which he has been placed under suspension by the Collector.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner holds the post of Chief Municipal Officer. Therefore, the competent authority to place him under suspension is the State Government. However, the Collector by the impugned order has suspended the petitioner. The impugned order is perse illegal and void ab-initio. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the decision in the case of Shashidhar Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2007 (1) MPLJ 495. On the other hand, learned Government Advocate submitted that the respondents be granted liberty to take action against the petitioner in accordance with law.
In view of submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and in view of law laid down by Bench of this Court in case of Shashidhar (supra), the order of suspension dated 14.1.2013 is quashed. However, the respondents shall be at liberty to take action against the petitioner in accordance with the law.
Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. Certified copy as per rules.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RC.
Writ Petition No.1505/201301.02.2013 Mr. Nilesh Kotecha, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Heard on the question of admission. On payment of PF by registered post with acknowledgment due within a period of one week, issue notice of the writ petition to the respondents.
Notices be made returnable within a period of four weeks.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RC Writ Petition No.1536/2013 01.02.2013 Mr. Brijesh Choubey, learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner after arguing to some extent, prays for adjournment in order to enable him to move an application for amendment.
As prayed, let the writ petition be listed after two weeks.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RC