Shri Chandra Shakya vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2022 Latest Caselaw 5308 MP

                       IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                    AT GWALIOR
                                       WP No. 8045 of 2022
                     (SHRI CHANDRA SHAKYA Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS)


Dated : 11-04-2022
        Shri R.P.Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner.

        Shri Varun Kaushik, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondents/State.

The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India to revise the defective second kramonnati orders passed with respect to petitioner however, in fact he was entitled to get the Second Kramonnati in the corresponding

year with respect to continuous 24 years of service form the date of direct recruitment/appointment in regular service, but granted at the later stage in the year 203 in

place of 19.4.1999 in a arbitrary manner.

Learned counsel for the petitioner 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 petitioner intends to prefer representation which may be directed to be decided expeditiously

by the respondents/ authorities.

Learned Govt. Advocate 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 petitioner, this petition is disposed of with a direction to the petitioner 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 petitioner is similarly situated or not. If the said authorities come to the conclusion that the petitioner is similarly situated, the same benefit be extended in

favour of the present petitioner 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

neetu NEETU SHASHAN K 2022.04.18 17:29:49 +05'30'