Laxman Singh Jamod vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 2560 MP

                                    1
     HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : BENCH AT INDORE
                         W.P. No.4688/2021
      Laxman Singh Jamod Vs. Tribal Welfare Department & Others

Indore, Dated:- 21/06/2021

        Shri Romesh Dave, Counsel for the applicant - Laxman Singh

Jamod.

        Shri Siddharth Jain, learned Govt. Advocate for the

respondent/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.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits 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.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the

concerned respondent be directed to decide the petitioner's claim

HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : BENCH AT INDORE W.P. No.4688/2021 Laxman Singh Jamod Vs. Tribal Welfare Department & Others

within a time bound period.

4. Learned counsel for the respondents has no objection to the

same.

5. 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 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.

6. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.

C.c. as per rules.

(SUBODH ABHYANKAR) JUDGE ns

NEERAJ SARVATE 2021.06.23 11:25:27 +05'30'