Chandrabhan vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 8236 MP

                                    1
  HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : BENCH AT INDORE
                    W.P. No.24801 of 2021
          Chandrabhan Sugndhi Vs. State of M.P. & Ors.

Indore, Dated:- 04/12/2021

      Shri S. R. Porwal, Counsel for the petitioner.

      Shri Palash Choudhary, Counsel for the respondents/State, on

advance notice.

      This writ petition is heard and disposed of finally with the

consent of the learned counsel for the parties.

                          ORDER

The petitioner has filed the present writ petition claiming the

benefit of regular pay-scale from the date of initial appointment in

the light of the earlier orders passed by this Court.

Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the same

issue has already been decided by order dated 24.08.1992 passed by

the M.P. State Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No. 2745/2009

(Madhukant Yadu V/s State of M.P.). The S.L.P. No. 6092/93

preferred against this order was dismissed by the Supreme Court. He

also submitted that similar writ petitions have already been disposed

of by this Court by issuing directions in favour of the writ petitioners.

Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the concerned

respondent be directed to decide the petitioner's claim within a time

bound period.

Counsel for the respondents has no objection to the same.

HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : BENCH AT INDORE W.P. No.24801 of 2021 Chandrabhan Sugndhi Vs. State of M.P. & Ors.

In view of the aforesaid, the present writ petition is disposed of

by giving liberty to the petitioner to file an appropriate representation

to the concerned respondent raising the grievance in respect of the

non grant of regular pay-scale/increments from the date of initial

appointment. If such a representation is submitted by the petitioner,

the concerned respondent will consider and decide it within a period

of four weeks from the date of its receipt keeping in view the

judgment in the matter of Madhukant Yadu (supra) noted above

and any other binding judgment on the point and if the petitioner is

found to be entitled to the said benefit, the concerned respondent

would extend such benefit to him without any delay. Any adverse

order will be a reasoned speaking order.

The writ petition is accordingly, disposed of.

C. c. as per rules.

(SUBODH ABHYANKAR) JUDGE Pankaj Digitally signed by PANKAJ PANDEY Date: 2021.12.04 16:31:18 +05'30'