Neeraj Yadav vs State Of M.P.
2022 Latest Caselaw 3103 MP

                                        1
             The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
                       WP No. 5030 of 2022
                    (NEERAJ YADAV AND OTHERS Vs STATE OF M.P. AND OTHERS)

Jabalpur, Dated : 04-03-2022
         Shri K. K. Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioners.

         Shri Piyush Bhatnagar, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondents/State.

Issue notice to the respondents on payment of P.F. within five days by both modes, returnable within four weeks.

Heard on the question of interim relief.

The petitioners are basically challenging the system of calling off duty for

two months of the personnel who are on voluntary services with the home guards in the State. The petitioners are all working with the Home Guard Department and who are to face "calling off" duty on different days.

Learned counsel for the petitioners has drawn the attention of this court to the order passed by a co-ordinate bench dated 02.12.2011 passed in W.P. No. 10000/2010 wherein inter alia, this issue was also considered by an extremely detailed order of this court. In the directions given by this Court in paragraph 49, Clause- E, it was directed that:

"Apart from the aforesaid, the system of calling off duty shall be done away

with and the employees shall be employed throughout the year subject to their being physically fit or otherwise entitled to work in accordance with law."

Thereafter, the said judgment was challenged by way of W.A. No. 83 of 2012 and the Division Bench sustained the order of learned Single Judge by slightly modifying the order to the effect that the high level committee, which may be constituted by the State, which would not be influenced in any of the manner by any of the observation made by the learned Single Judge. However, the writ appellate court does not set aside the unequivocal direction given to the State Government in Clause- E of Paragraph 49 that the system of calling off duty shall be done away with. The order passed by the writ appellate court was challenged by way of a petition under Article 136 before the Supreme Court, which was also disposed off without striking of Clause-E of paragraph 49 of the Single Judge's order.

Under the circumstance, the Rules 2016 which have been introduced have once again attempted to perpetuate the same perceived injustice which was set aside by co-ordinate bench in Clause E of paragraph 49.

Under the circumstances, the impugned order dated 22.01.2020 (Annexure-

P/1) so far as it relates to the petitioners herein shall remain stayed till the next date of hearing.

List this case on 28.04.2022.

Office is requested to place these cases on the administrative side before the Hon'ble the Chief Justice to consider whether all these cases should be assigned to a Single Judge in order to avoid conflicting orders.

C.C. as per rules.

(ATUL SREEDHARAN) JUDGE

Akm

Signature Not Verified SAN

Digitally signed by AKANKSHA MAURYA Date: 2022.03.05 12:53:33 IST