Madhya Pradesh High Court
Saiyad Naeem Ui Hasan vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 25 February, 2013
WRIT PETITION No.11800/2012 1
25.02.2013
Shri Pushpendra Yadav, learned Counsel for the
petitioners.
Shri Lalit Joglekar, learned Panel Lawyer, for the
respondents-State.
Though the notices were issued by this Court to the respondents, yet no response has been filed.
It is contended by learned Counsel for the petitioners that the issue is covered by several decisions of this Court, lastly decided by this Court in the case of Kishori Lal Prajapati & others vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & others, W.P. No.5332/2010 (S). It is further contended that the decision rendered by this Court in the case of Kishori Lal Prajapati (supra) was relied and made applicable in the case of Bhagchand Patel vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & others, W.P. No.16930/2012 (S), which was disposed of on 10.10.2012. The order passed in the case of Bhagchand Patel (supra) was called in question before the Division Bench by the respondents-State in W.A. No.53/2013, which has been dismissed on 23.01.2013.
These submissions made by learned Counsel for the petitioners are not disputed by learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the respondents-State.
In view of the aforesaid, this writ petition is also disposed of with the similar directions as was issued in the case of Kishori Lal Prajapati (supra). Let the aforesaid exercise be completed within three months and the arrears, if any, after fixing the salary on the minimum WRIT PETITION No.11800/2012 2 pay scale as has been granted to others, be paid to the petitioners within the aforesaid period. The respondents will also look into the claim made by the petitioners in the petition with respect to benefit of period of probation and will take the decision on the same within the aforesaid period.
With the aforesaid, the writ petition is finally disposed of.
Certified copy as per rules.
(K.K. Trivedi) Judge Skc