Bharat Singh Baghel vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2022 Latest Caselaw 4326 MP

                                                                              1
                                                          IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                                        AT INDORE
                                                                         BEFORE
                                                         HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA
                                                                 ON THE 28 th OF MARCH, 2022
                                                                WRIT PETITION No. 7142 of 2022

                                                    Between:-
                                                    BHARAT SINGH BAGHEL S/O SHRI
                                                    KALJYA LBAGHEL, AGED ABOUT 59
                                                    YE AR S , OCCUPATION: SERVICE GOVT.
                                                    MIDDLE SCHOOL GANGPUR, BLOCK-
                                                    DAHI (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                                       .....PETITIONER
                                                    (BY SHRI SANTOSH PANDEY, ADVOCATE)

                                                    AND

                                            1.      THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                    PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TRIBAL WORK
                                                    (DEVELOPMENT)         DEPARMENT,
                                                    VALLABH BHAWAN BHOPAL (MADHYA
                                                    PRADESH)

                                            2.      C O M M I S S I O N E R TRIBAL    WORK
                                                    (DEVELOPMENT)               DEPARTMENT
                                                    VINDHYACHAL          BHAWAN,    BHOPAL
                                                    (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                            3.      ASSISTANT    COMMISSIONER TRIBAL
                                                    WORK (DEVELOPMENT) DEPARTMENT
                                                    DHAR (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                            4.      JOINT DIRECTOR TREASURY ACCOUNTS
                                                    AND     PENSION DIVISION  KOTHARI
                                                    MARKET INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                                    .....RESPONDENTS
                                                    (BY SHRI P.KIBE, PANEL LAWYER)
                                                  T h is petition coming on for orders    this day, the court passed the
                                            following:
                                                                              ORDER

A t the outset learned counsel for petitioner submits that the matter is covered by order passed by erstwhile Madhya Pradesh State Administrative Signature Not VerifiedDigitally signed by SAN VARGHESE MATHEW Date: 2022.03.28 Tribunal in the case of Madhukant Yadu and 56 others v. State of Madhya 17:25:36 IST

Pradesh & Ors. in Original Application No.2745/1989 on 24.08.1992 and

followed in various cases by this Court. The SLP No.6092/1993 preferred against this order was dismissed by the Supreme Court.

The prayer is not opposed by the State's counsel. Accordingly, this petition is disposed off in terms of the aforesaid order

passed in Madhukant Yadu and 56 others (supra) and the same shall apply mutatus mutandis. The petitioner shall prefer a detailed representation individually mentioning all the facts, grounds and judgment on which he/she wants to place reliance and submit the same before the respondents No.2 to 4 within 15 days from today. The said respondents shall be well advised to advert to the representation of the petitioner within 12 weeks therefrom, in accordance with law. In case the petitioner is entitled for the benefits, the same shall be released within the stipulated period; and if found that the petitioner is not entitled for the similar benefit, reasons thereof be communicated to the petitioner.

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

Writ Petition is accordingly disposed off.

(VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA) JUDGE VM

Signature Not Verified VerifiedDigitally Digitally signed by SAN VARGHESE MATHEW Date: 2022.03.28 17:25:36 IST