Raghuveer Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 5775 MP

                                    1



                  HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                       W.P.No. 19037/2021
               Raghuveer Vs. State of M.P. & Others
Jabalpur, Dated: 21.09.2021

      Shri Mahendra Pateriya, learned counsel for the petitioner.
      Shri    Amit    Pandey,    learned     Panel   Lawyer     for   the
respondents/State.

Present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed seeking following reliefs:-

"i. This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to command the respondents, to absorb the petitioner in Sahayak Adhyapak Samvarg by treating him to have been in continuous service as Samvida Shala Shikshak Varg III from 08.07.2013 till date.

ii. Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court finds the petitioner entitled to be also granted.

iii. Cost of the petition."

It is alleged that the petitioner was initially appointed on 08.07.2013 on the post of Samvida Shala Sahayak Varg III. An FIR was lodged against him for the offence punishable under Section 294, 323 read with Section 34 IPC and Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed against the petitioner and he was placed under suspension. The petitioner has faced the entire trial being S.T.No.100250/2016 and vide judgment dated 02.01.2018 he was acquitted. He approached the authorities for reinstatement in the service but on refusal to do so a writ petition being W.P.No.29928/2018 was filed by the petitioner. Vide order dated 07.01.2019, the Court has directed as under:

"In the circumstances, the petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent concerned to decide the petitioner's representation dated 20.12.2018 (Annexure P/7) in the light of the letters dated 24.01.2018 and 13.03.2018 (Annexure P/5 & P/6 respectively) in accordance with law,

expeditiously, preferably within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order"

In pursuance to the order passed by this Court in the aforesaid writ petition the petitioner's case was reconsidered and he was reinstated in the service, but the absorption has not been done, therefore, he preferred a detailed representation and the same is pending till date. An innocuous prayer has been made to direct the respondent/authorities to consider and decide the pending representation within a stipulated time period.

Counsel for the State has no objection to the innocuous prayer and submits that a fresh representation be filed by the petitioner, same will be considered and decided expeditiously. Respondent No.3 sought instructions from respondent No.1. but the same has not been decided so far.

Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, petitioner is directed to file a fresh representation to respondent No.1 and 3 and in turn respondent Nos.1 and 3 are directed to dwell upon the same and settle the grievances of the petitioner within three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order and pass a self contained speaking order and communicate the outcome to the petitioner.

With the aforesaid observations, this petition stands disposed of. Certified copy as per rules.

(VISHAL MISHRA) JUDGE

Jasleen JASLEEN SINGH SALUJA 2021.09.22 16:23:53 +05'30'