Fatehsingh Rawat vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 7040 MP

                                   - : 1 :-



             THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                        BENCH AT INDORE
            (S.B.: HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA)
                     Writ Petition No.23829/2021
      Fatesingh Rawat, S/o Shri Kekadiya Rawat,
      Age-61 years, Occupation- Service at Govt.
      Primary School Patel Faliya Aambuaa, Block
      Alirajpur, District Alirajpur, M.P.
                                                           Petitioner.
                                   Versus
1.    State of M.P. through It's Principal Secretary,
      Tribal Work (Development) Department
      Vallab Bhawan, Bhopal, M.P.
2.    Commissioner,
      Tribal Work (Development) Department,
      Vindhyachal Bhawan, Bhopal, M.P.
3.    Assistant Commissioner, alirajpur,
      Tribal Work (Development) Department
      District Alirajpur.
4.    Joint Director,
      Treasury Accounts & Pension, Indore,
      Division Kothari Market, Indore, M.P.
                                                          Respondents
                                     ***
      Shri Santosh Pandey, learned counsel for the Petitioner .
      Shri Ranjeet Sen, learned Government Advocate for the
respondent/State.
                                 ORDER

(29/10/2021) 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 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 the said 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 petitioner. (3) Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the concerned

- : 2 :-

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

(4) Learned counsel for the respondents/State 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 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. (6) This writ petition is accordingly disposed of.

C.C. as per rules.

( VIVEK RUSIA ) JUDGE praveen

Digitally signed by PRAVEEN NAYAK Date: 2021.10.29 17:36:37 +05'30'