Ravindra Kumar Khare (R.K. Khare) vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh Thr.
2022 Latest Caselaw 7359 MP

                                 1


      IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                      AT GWALIOR
                   BEFORE LOK ADALAT
            HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ROHIT ARYA
                             &
             SHRI R.D. JAIN, SENIOR ADVOCATE
                  ON THE 14th OF MAY, 2022
             WRIT PETITION No. 1455 of 2015

     Between:-

     RAVINDRA KUMAR KHARE (R.K. KHARE) S/O
     LATE SHRI MANGULAL KHARE, AGED
     ABOUT 60 YEARS, OCCUPATION: PENSIONER
     (RETIRED STORE CLERK, SAHAYAK YANTRI,
     LOK SWASTHYA UP KHAND BHIND MP) R/O
     C/O ABHINANDAN VATIKA, GAYATRI NAGAR,
     KILA ROAD, DISTRICT BHIND (MADHYA
     PRADESH)
                                          .... PETITIONER

     (BY SHRI NEERAJ SHRIVASTAVA - ADVOCATE)

     AND

1.   THE  STATE    OF  MADHYA    PRADESH
     THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, PUBLIC
     HEALTH    ENGINEERING   DEPARTMENT,
     MADHYA PRADESH, SATPUDA BHAWAN,
     BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

2.   CHIEF   ENGINEER,   PUBLIC   HEALTH
     ENGINEERING    DEPARTMENT,    CIRCLE
     THATIPUR, GWALIOR (MADHYA PRADESH)

3.   EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PUBLIC HEALTH
     ENGINEERING    DEPARTMENT,  BHIND
     (MADHYA PRADESH)

4.   DIVISIONAL   JOINT    DIRECTOR,     KOSH-
                                                                    2


            LEKHA AND PENSION GWALIOR- CHAMBAL
            DIVISION, MOTIMAHAL GWALIOR (MADHYA
            PRADESH)

                                                                                            .... RESPONDENTS

            (BY SHRI SANJAY KUMAR                                          SHARMA               -
            GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)

..................................................................................................................................


           This petition coming on for conciliation this day, the Bench

passed the following :

                                                        ORDER

Shri Neeraj Shrivastava, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Sanjay Kumar Sharma, Govrnment Advocate for the respondent/State.

The present petition has been filed seeking the following reliefs:-

"7¼v½ fjLiksUMsUV Øekad 3 foHkkxh; izkf/kdkjh dk;Zikyu ;a=h yksd LokLFk; ;kaf=dh; foHkkx [k.M fHk.M ds }kjk tkjh fnukad 01-03-2014 vusDTkj [email protected] dks [email protected] djrs gq, fiVh'kuj ds ofj"B [email protected]ØeksUufr osrueku ds DysEl dks ekuuh; U;k;ky; }kjk leku izdj.k es tkjh fn'kk funsZ'k tks fd fjV fiVh'ku ua- [email protected] ¼,l½ rstw yky ;kno fo:} e/;izns'k jkT; o vU; esa ifjr vkns'k fnukad 23-01-2009 I.L.R.(2009)M.P., 1326 es of.kZr gksdj izdkf'kr gS layXu vusDtj [email protected] ds vuqlkj 12 ,oa 24 o"kZ dh lsok mijkar Ø[email protected] ofj"B osrueku izkIr djus ds DysEl dks iqu% fopkj es ysdj vkns'[email protected]'k fjLiksUMsUV

foHkkxh; izkf/kdkfj;ksa dks fu/kkZfjr le; vof/k 60 fnol esa iznku djus dh d`ik djsaA 7¼c½ fiVh'kuj dks fjLiksUMsUV foHkkx esa dh xbZ lEiw.kZ lsok vof/k 38 o"kZ dh lsok ,oa vkgZrknk;h lsok 26 o"kZ 4 ekg 28 fnol ds vk/kkj ij 12 o"kZ dh lsok iw.kZ djsus ds mijkar ,o 24 o"kZ dh lsok iw.kZ djus mijkar Øekad izFke ,oa f}rh; ØeksUufr [email protected]"B osrueku vFkok fodYi es e/;izns'k 'kklu dh flfoy lsok ds lnL;ksa dks lsok esa vkxs c<+us ds fuf'pr volj miyC/k djk;s tkus gsrq izHkkoh le;eku osrueku ¼VkbZe Ldsy is½ fu/kkZfjr le; vof/k mijkar 10 o"kZ vkSj 20 o"kZ ,d gh laoxZ LVksj DydZ ds in ij foHkkx esa lsok djus mijkar osrueku iznku fd, tkus ds funsZ'k fjLiksUMsUV foHkkxh; izkf/kdkfj;ksa dks iznku djus ds vkns'[email protected]'k iznku djus dh d`ik djsaA

7¼l½ vU; mfpr fjV] vkns'k vFkok funsZ'k U;k; fgr eas fiVh'kuj ds i{k eas tkjh djus dh d`ik djsa] izdj.k O;; fjLiksUMsUV~l ls fnyk;s tkus dh d`ik djsaA"

It is alleged by the counsel for the petitioner that his case is governed by the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh v. Anil Kumar Garg and Ors (W.A. No. 912/2015) being leading case deciding the controversy. He further submits that his case is identical to that of case of K.L. Asre v. State of M.P. and Anr.(W.P. No. 1070 of 2003). He prays for similar reliefs to be extended to the petitioner.

Counsel for the State submits that if the petitioner files representation, then it will be considered and decided as expeditiously as possible.

In view of the aforesaid, petitioner is directed to submit a detailed representation to respondents no. 2 and 3/competent authority within a period of fifteen working days from today along with all relevant documents and in turn the said respondents are directed consider the representation submitted by the petitioner and pass a self contained speaking order and if the petitioner is found entitled for such benefits, then the same may be extended to the petitioner.

The aforesaid exercise be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

It is made clear that this court has not expressed anything on merits of the case.

With the aforesaid observations petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.

                             (ROHIT ARYA)                      (R.D.JAIN)
                                    MEMBER                     MEMBER


(yog)



                                  YOGESH
                                  VERMA
                                  2022.05.18
               VALSALA
               VASUDEVAN
               2018.10.26
               15:14:29 -07'00'
                                  16:39:38
                                  +05'30'