Madhya Pradesh High Court
Amit Kumar Singh Patel vs Union Of India on 20 July, 2022
Author: Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari
Bench: Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI
ON THE 20th OF JULY, 2022
WRIT PETITION No. 11628 of 2022
Between:-
AMIT KUMAR SINGH PATEL S/O SHRI HARIOM
PATEL, AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
AGRICULTURIST R/O VILLAGE TEKUAA, THANA
CHORHATA, TEHSIL HUZUR, DISTRICT REWA
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI ARUN KUMAR SINGH - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. UNION OF INDIA THROUGH THE SECRETARY
RAILWAY DEPARTMENT MANTRALAYA
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, NEW DELHI
2. GENERAL MANAGER, WEST CENTRAL
R A I LWAY, GENERAL MANAGER OFFICE,
PERSONAL DEPARTMENT JABALPUR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
3. THE DEPUTY CHIEF PERSONAL OFFICER
(RECRUITMENT), WEST CENTRAL RAILWAY,
GENERAL MANAGER OFFICE JABALPUR
(MADHYA PRADESH)
4. LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER/SUB DIVISIONAL
O FFI CER TEHSIL HUZUR DISTRICT REWA
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(SHRI PRAVEEN NAMDEO - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE AND
SHRI CHANDRA MOHAN TIWARI - ADVOCATE FOR
RESPONDENTS NO.2 AND 3. )
This petition coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
Signature Not Verified
SAN
following:
Digitally signed by VARSHA
CHOURASIYA
Date: 2022.07.20 17:58:16 IST
ORDER
2 Looking to the nature of order which this Court proposes to pass, no notice to the respondents is necessary.
The grievance of the petitioner in the present case is that the land belonging to the petitioner's father was acquired by the respondents for the purpose of laying new railway line for which award was passed on 31.12.2010. Compensation was received by the father of the petitioner. As per the policy of the Railway Department, the petitioner applied for seeking a job on the post of D-Grade on 16.11.2016, Annexure P/6 before the competent authority but no action has been taken by the respondent authority. In the circumstances, the respondents may be directed to decide the application dated 16.11.2016, Annexure P/6 as early as possible.
On the other hand, learned Government Advocate and learned counsel for respondents no.2 and 3 have no objection to the innocuous prayer made by the petitioner.
In the facts and circumstances of the case, respondents No.2 and 3/competent authority is directed to decide the application of the petitioner dated 16.11.2016, Annexure P/6 in the light of the policy/scheme of the Railway Department, in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order.
It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.
Accordingly, writ petition stands disposed of with the aforesaid Signature Not Verified SAN directions.
Digitally signed by VARSHAC.C. as per rules.
CHOURASIYA Date: 2022.07.20 17:58:16 IST 3 (S. A. DHARMADHIKARI) JUDGE vc Signature Not Verified SAN Digitally signed by VARSHA CHOURASIYA Date: 2022.07.20 17:58:16 IST