Mohd. Hafeez Sheikh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 5917 MP

                                                                                  1                                     WP-19543-2021
                                           The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
                                                      WP-19543-2021
                                            (MOHD. HAFEEZ SHEIKH Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS)

                         1
                         Jabalpur, Dated : 23-09-2021
                                     Heard through Video Conferencing.
                                     Ms. Ankita Khare, counsel for the petitioner.
                                     Shri D.S. Choudhary, counsel for respondent no.4

Shri Manish Kholiya, Panel Lawyer for respondent nos.1 to 3. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is claiming regularization

and petition filed by the other similarly situated persons before this Court has been disposed of as W.P. No.19238/2021 vide order dated 20/9/2021, therefore, petitioner is also claiming same direction.

Shri D.S. Choudhary appearing for respondent no.4 has no objection, if the petition is disposed of in the light of said order passed in W.P. No.19238/2020.

The relevant portion of the order dated 20/9/2021 passed in W.P. No.19238/2021 is reproduced here-under:-

"From perusal of the record, it is seen that the controversy involved in the present has been put to raise in the case of Prakash Verma Vs.State of M.P. and others , (supra) as stated that the petitioner is identical situated employee to the case of Prakash Verma Vs. State of M.P. and others, (supra), therefore, this court deems it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition with the direction to the petitioner to submit a detailed representation alongwith all relevant documents to the respondent nos. 2 and 4 within a period of fifteen days from today and in case such are presentation is filed then the authorities are directed to dwell upon the same and considering the judgment passed in the case of PrakashVerma Vs. State of M.P. and others, (supra) pass a self contained speaking order and communicate the outcome of the same to the petitioner. The aforesaid exercise be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. The authorities are directed to decide the representation also considering the fact that the petitioner is identical situated to the case of PrakashVerma Vs. State of M.P. and others, (supra) and the authorities will also be having right to verify the aspect whether the appointment of the petitioner is illegal or irregular. If the petitioner is found to be identically situated and his appointment is not found to be illegal then the benefit as extended to the similarly situated employees be also extended to the petitioner within the aforesaid period. The petition stands disposed of."

Accordingly, this petition is disposed of directing the petitioner to file a fresh Signature Not Verified SAN representation and on the same being done, the respondents shall consider the same Digitally signed by REENA HIMANSHU SHARMA Date: 2021.09.24 15:29:19 IST 2 WP-19543-2021 taking note of the observation made herein-above, within a period of three months from today.

It is informed by learned counsel for the petitioner that representation of the petitioner is pending before respondent no.4, but it has to be decided by respondent no.2. Therefore, respondent no.4 is directed to refer the representation of the

petitioner to respondent no.2 for its consideration, as directed herein-above.

With the aforesaid direction, petition stands disposed of.

(SANJAY DWIVEDI) JUDGE

rv

Signature Not Verified SAN

Digitally signed by REENA HIMANSHU SHARMA Date: 2021.09.24 15:29:19 IST