Madhya Pradesh High Court
Dileep Kumar Sharma vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 19 June, 2017
WP-6654-2017
(DILEEP KUMAR SHARMA Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
19-06-2017
Shri R. P. Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Ms. Vandana Shrivastava, learned P.L. for the
respondents/State.
Heard.
In this writ petition, the petitioner, inter-alia, seeks a direction to the respondents to extend the benefit of second kramonnati of pay along with all consequential benefits on completion of 12 years of service on the post of Lower Division Teacher.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the controversy involved in the instant writ petition is squarely covered by an order dated 07/08/2015 passed in Writ Petition No.7456/2015. It is further submitted that with regard to his claim, 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 as also to examine the case of the petitioner in light of the aforesaid order as well as the scheme of Kramonnati of pay.
On the other hand, learned Panel Lawyer submits that the representation which may be submitted by the petitioner shall be dealt with by the competent authority expeditiously, in accordance with law.
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 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, the competent authority shall consider and decide the same expeditiously, preferably within a period of two months from the date of receipt of such a representation, by a speaking order, keeping in view the decision passed on 07/08/2015 in Writ Petition No.7456/2015 as well as the scheme of kramonnati of pay and in case it is found that the petitioner is entitled to receive the similar benefit as has been granted to the petitioner in aforesaid writ petition, the said benefit shall also be extended to the petitioner within the aforesaid time period.
It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.
C.C. as per rules.
(MISS VANDANA KASREKAR) JUDGE manju