Madhya Pradesh High Court
Suresh Chandra Dubey vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 16 March, 2022
Author: Sanjay Dwivedi
Bench: Sanjay Dwivedi
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJAY DWIVEDI
ON THE 16th OF MARCH, 2022
WRIT PETITION No. 6088 of 2022
Between:-
SURESH CHANDRA DUBEY S/O PRAYAGDAS
DUBEY , AGED ABOUT 83 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
TIMEKEEPER WATER RESOURCES CUB DIVISION
BALDEOGARH THROUGH NEERAJ DUBEY R/O
WARD NO. 2, PURANI BASTI BALDEGARH,
DISTRICT TIKAMGARH (M.P.) (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI RAJNEESH KUMAR VERMA, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH ITS
SECRETARY WATER RESOURCE DEPARTMENT
VALLABH BHAWAN BHOPAL (M.P.) (MADHYA
PRADESH)
2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY GENERAL
ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT VALLABH
BHAWAN, BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. THE SECRETARY FINANCE DEPARTMENT(RURAL
BRANCH) VALLABH BHAWAN, BHOPAL (MADHYA
PRADESH)
4. THE ENGINEER IN CHIEF WATER RESOURCE
D EPARTM EN T( P. H. E. ) VALLABH BHAWAN,
BHOPAL (M.P.) (MADHYA PRADESH)
5. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER WATER RESOURCE
DEPARTM ENT(P.H.E.) TI K A M G A R H DISTRICT-
TIKAMGARH (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI MANAS MANI VERMA, GA)
T h is petition coming on for hearing this day, the court passed the
following:
ORDER
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that although the petitioner is eligible to get the benefit of Kramonnati Vetanman, but, the said benefit has not been given to him only because he is a Work Charged Employee. He submits that Signature Not Verified SAN this controversy has already been put to an end in the case of K.L. Asre vs. State Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA SHARAN SHUKLA Date: 2022.03.16 17:05:34 IST of M.P. and others-WP No. 1070/2003 decided on 07.11.2005 wherein it has 2 been held that even the Work Charged Employees are also entitled to get the benefit of Kramonnati Vetanman. He submits that petitioner has already made a representation (Annexure P/6) to the authority on 20.06.2021, but, the same is still pending and no decision has been taken thereof so far.
Learned counsel for the respondent-State submits that this petition can be disposed of directing authority to decide the pending representation of the petitioner.
Considering the aforesaid, this petition is disposed of directing respondent No. 5 to consider the claim of the petitioner and decide the pending representation (Annexure P/6) of the petitioner within a period of three months from submitting certified copy of this order.
It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on merit of the case. If the petitioner is a Work Charged Employee, the authority shall consider his claim considering the fact that other similarly situated employees have already been granted the benefit of Kramonnati Vetanman in the light of law laid down in the case of K.L. Asre (supra).
With the aforesaid, this petition is disposed of.
SANJAY DWIVEDI) JUDGE RAGHVENDRA Signature Not Verified SAN Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA SHARAN SHUKLA Date: 2022.03.16 17:05:34 IST