Siyaram vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2022 Latest Caselaw 1548 MP

                                                                  1
                                        The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
                                                  WP No. 858 of 2022
                                               (SIYARAM Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS)

                                Indore, Dated : 03-02-2022
                                      Heard through Video Conferencing.

                                      Mr Ajay Kumar Mimrot, learned counsel for the petitioner.
                                      Ms Vinita Phaye, learned counsel for the respondents State.

The petitioner before this Court has filed the present petition claiming the benefit of Fundamental Rule 22-D on account of his promotion from the post of Assistant Teacher to Upper Division Teacher.

Learned counsel for petitioner at the outset has stated before this Court that a circular has been issued by the State Government dated 31st December 2011 and the respondents are required to consider the case of the petitioner in light of the aforesaid circular and in light of the judgment delivered in the case o f State of M.P. & One Another Vs. DayaramPatidar (W.P. No.1104/2011) decided on 04.10.2012. Learned Government Advocate for the respondents has fairly stated before this court that the respondents shall be considering the case of petitioner and shall be passing appropriate orders in accordance with law keeping in view the aforesaid

circular issued by the State Government.

Resultantly, without averting to the merits of the case, this petition is disposed of with a liberty to the petitioner to submit a detailed representation afresh to the Assistant commissioner Tribal Development Department, District-Khargone furnishing all minutes service details with a prayer to grant the benefit on account of his promotion from the post of Assistant Teacher to Upper Division Teacher in light of FR-22D. In case a representation is submitted by petitioner,the respondent No. 3 District Education Officer, Khargone, shall pass appropriate orders keeping in view the circular dated 31st December 2011 and the judgment delivered in case of State of M.P. Vs. DayaramPatidar (Supra).

Signature Not Verified SAN It is needless to mention that there presentation includes a copy of the

Digitally signed by RASHMI PRASHANT Date: 2022.02.07 18:07:05 IST

aforesaid circular and the judgment delivered in the case of Dayaram Patidar. The exercise of deciding the case of the petitioner be concluded within a period of three months from the date of receipt of such representation. In case the petitioner is found eligible by the competent authority, the respondent-authorities are directed to release the amount within a period of two months thereof.

With the aforesaid, this writ petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs.

Certified copy, as per rules.

(PRANAY VERMA) JUDGE

rashmi

Signature Not Verified SAN

Digitally signed by RASHMI PRASHANT Date: 2022.02.07 18:07:05 IST