Madhya Pradesh High Court
Madhya Pradesh Rajya Krishi Vipanan ... vs Ghisa Lal Rathor on 3 September, 2012
M.P. Rajya Krishi Vipanan & Anr. Vs. Ghisa Lal Rathor & Ors.
Review Petition No. 637 / 2012
3.9.2012
Shri Naman Nagrath, learned counsel with Shri Sanjeev
Mishra, counsel for the applicant.
Shri A.K. Shukla, learned counsel for non-applicant No.1.
Shri Piyush Dharmadhikari, learned counsel for non-
applicant Nos.2 & 3.
I.A. No.9784/2012 is filed for amendment in the cause title.
Application is allowed.
Amendment be incorporated within a week.
It is pointed out by learned counsel for the applicant that
while disposing of the Writ Petition No.6782/2011(s) on
27.4.2011, this Court directed the respondents (in the writ
petition) to grant the same benefits, as has been granted to Shri Hiramani Sharma by virtue of order passed by this Court in various writ petitions.
It is stated by learned counsel for the applicant that in various similar writ petitions the case of employees were screened and thereafter benefit was granted, whereas in the present case non-applicant No.1 (Petitioner in W.P. No.6782/2011) is yet to be screened by the Scrutiny Committee constituted by the Board and therefore, no benefit can be extended. This Court while disposing of the writ petition has only directed the applicant to consider the case of the employee/non-applicant No.1 and decide his claim within three months. If the applicants feels that the employee's claim has to be considered in a particular manner or the same benefit as granted to other employees cannot be granted to the 2 non-applicant No.1 for any reason whatsoever, applicants are free to record such reason and proceed in accordance to law. In case applicants feels that non-applicant should screened, applicants are free to screen the employee and grant benefit in terms of prevailing policy and circular.
With the aforesaid observations, this application is disposed of.
c.c. as per rules.
(Rajendra Menon) Judge ss*