Balkrishna Santosh Rao vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2022 Latest Caselaw 13856 MP

                             1



IN    THE   HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                  AT JABALPUR
                         BEFORE
         HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH,
                      CHIEF JUSTICE
                             &
          HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL MISHRA
               ON THE 27th OF OCTOBER, 2022
                WRIT APPEAL No. 1188 of 2022

BETWEEN:-
BALKRISHNA SANTOSH RAO S/O LATE S.R.
ALBANKAR, AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS, PLOT NO. 20,
SHRI PURNA GRUH NIRMAN SOCIETY, DABHA WADI
HINGNA, NAGPUR (MAHARASHTRA)

                                               .....APPELLANT
(BY SHRI SURENDRA VERMA - ADVOCATE)

AND
1.    THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
      THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY PUBLIC WORKS
      DEPARTMENT     MANTRALAYA    VALLABH
      BHAWAN BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

2.    THE ENGINEER IN CHIEF, PUBLIC WORKS
      DEPARTMENT NIRMAN BHAWAN ARERA HILLS,
      BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

3.    SUPERINTENDENT ENGINEER, PUBLIC WORKS
      DEPARTMENT (B AND R) SEONI ZONE, TEHSIL
      AND DISTRICT SEONI (MADHYA PRADESH)

4.    EXECUTIVE  ENGINEER,   PUBLIC   WORKS
      DEPARTMENT (B AND R), TAMIYA, DISTRICT
                                       2



      CHHINDWARA (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                       .....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI RITWIK PARASHAR - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE )
........................................................................................................

      This appeal coming on for orders this day, Hon'ble Shri Justice
Ravi Malimath, Chief Justice passed the following:

                                  ORDER

For the reasons assigned, I.A. No. 12604 of 2022, an application for condonation of delay is allowed. The delay in filing the appeal is condoned.

2. Aggrieved by the order dated 22.03.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in dismissing the Writ Petition No.5752 of 2022 on the ground of delay, the writ petitioner is in appeal.

3. The case of the petitioner is that he is entitled to the similar benefits as granted vide order dated 07.11.2005 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. (S) No. 1070 of 2003 (K.L. Asre Vs. State of M.P. and another). The said judgment was challenged in Writ Appeal No.1248 of 2009. After dismissal of the writ appeal, the Special Leave Petition was also dismissed. The said position is not disputed by the learned Government Advocate. However, the learned Single Judge came to the view that the petition has been filed after a delay of almost 17 years in seeking relief and hence, on that ground alone, the writ petition was dismissed. There is no reference to the merits of the case.

4. On considering the contention as well as the order passed by the learned Single Judge, we are of the considered view that appropriate interference is called for.

5. No doubt, it is a matter of fact that there is a delay of 17 years in seeking the relief. Therefore, per se on the ground of delay, the petitioner may not be entitled for any relief. However, in the given facts and circumstances of the case, what the petitioner pleads is parity in terms of similarly placed persons, as has been considered in the earlier judgment of this Court referred to above. Specifically in paragraph No. 6 of the said order in W.P. (S) No. 1070 of 2003, it has been held as follows:-

"6. Since the Time Bound Promotion is applicable to the Drivers serving under the Work-charge Establishment, the view of this Court is that the same is also applicable to the petitioner who was serving on the post of Time Keeper and was retired from the said post."

6. Therefore, it cannot be said that the aforesaid judgment is not in rem. The finding of the learned Single Judge is that the Time Bound Promotion Scheme is applicable to all Drivers serving under the Work - Charged Establishment. The petitioner too was working as a Time Keeper under the Work - Charged Establishment. Therefore, he too would be entitled to the same relief. In fact, it is the duty of the respondents to have extended the benefit to the similarly placed persons. Not doing so, in our considered view, would amount to denial of right of the petitioner in view of the fact that similarly placed persons have already received the benefits.

7. Under these circumstances, the appeal is allowed. The order dated 22.03.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No.5752 of 2022 is set aside. The respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner in the light of the judgment of this Court in the case of K.L. Asre (supra) without reference to the delay and pass an appropriate order within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy this order.

           (RAVI MALIMATH)                                    (VISHAL MISHRA)
             CHIEF JUSTICE                                         JUDGE

    MSP




MANVENDRA SINGH
PARIHAR
2022.10.29 13:10:49 +05'30'