Virendra Singh Gurjar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2022 Latest Caselaw 5095 MP

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 5095 MP
Judgement Date : 7 April, 2022

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Virendra Singh Gurjar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 7 April, 2022

Author: Milind Ramesh Phadke

                                           1
                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                 AT GWALIOR
                                    WP No. 27015 of 2021
         (VIRENDRA SINGH GURJAR AND OTHERS Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS)

Dated : 07-04-2022
             Shri G.S. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioners.

             Shri Abhishek Sharma, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.

The present petition has been filed by the petitioners under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India being aggrieved by the illegal and discriminatory action on the part of the respondents, whereby the benefit of second krammonati (time bound higher pay scale) has not been granted to the petitioners in their whole

service career as per circular dated 19.4.1999. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the present matter is covered by the judgment delivered by this Court in the case of Smt. Prerna Vs. State of M.P. & Others (W.P.No.6773/2006(S) decided on 26.1.2007). Learned counsel further submits that the petitioners intend to prefer representation which may be directed to be decided expeditiously by the respondents/ authorities.

Learned Panel Lawyer has not opposed the prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

In the light of submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners,

this petition is disposed of with a direction to the petitioners to file representation along with copy of this order before the respondents/authorities. In turn, the said respondents/authorities shall consider and decide the same by a reasoned and speaking order within a period of three months therefrom in accordance with rules by taking into account the judgment in Prerna's case and examine whether the petitioners are similarly situated or not. If the said authorities come to the conclusion that the petitioners are similarly situated, the same benefit be extended in favour of the present petitioners also within the same time.

It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.

With the aforesaid directions, the petition stands disposed of.

(MILIND RAMESH PHADKE) JUDGE ASHISH PAWAR 2022.04.08 12:07:55 +05'30'

Pawar