Raghuraj Singh Parmar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 18233 MP

                                                           1
                            IN    THE      HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                 AT GWALIOR
                                                      BEFORE
                                        HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND PATHAK
                                             ON THE 1 st OF NOVEMBER, 2023
                                            WRIT PETITION No. 27260 of 2023

                           BETWEEN:-
                           RAGHURAJ SINGH PARMAR S/O SHRI MOHARMAN
                           SINGH, AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
                           RETIRED VAHANCHALAK KARYABHARIT ESTHAPNA
                           PWD SAMBHAG MORENA GOPALPURA, MORENA
                           (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                     .....PETITIONER
                           (BY SHRI ALOK BANDHU SHRIVASTAVA - ADVOCATE)

                           AND
                           1.    THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
                                 PRINCIPAL SECRETARY LOK NIRMAN VIBHAG
                                 VALLABH BHAWAN, DISTRICT BHOPAL (MADHYA
                                 PRADESH)

                           2.    PRAMUKH      ABHIYANTA PUBLIC   WORKS
                                 DEPARTMENT BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

                           3.    MUKHYA      ABHIYANTA PUBLIC   WORKS
                                 DEPARTMENT GWALIOR (MADHYA PRADESH)

                           4.    KARYAPALAN     YANTRI PUBLIC WORKS
                                 DEPARTMENT SAMBHAG MORENA (MADHYA
                                 PRADESH)

                           5.    JILA TREJARI OFFICER          DISTRICT MORENA
                                 (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                  .....RESPONDENTS
                           (BY SHRI SHIRAZ QURESHI - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)

                                 Th is petition coming on for hearing this day, th e court passed the
                           following:
                                                            ORDER

Signature Not Verified Signed by: ASHISH CHAURASIA Signing time: 01-11-2023 06:54:43 PM

1 . Present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by the petitioners seeking a direction to respondents to consider the claim of petitioners for grant of Kramonnati and to extend the benefit of Time Bound Promotion Scheme to them with monetary benefits in the light of judgment rendered by coordinate Bench of this Court in W.P. No.1070 of 2003 (K.l.Asre Vs. State of M.P.) on 07.11.2005.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners who are retired employees, were appointed way back in the year 1979 as Helper (under work charge establishment) and continuously worked as Driver till their retirement. But they have neither been extended the benefit of Kramonnati nor

the benefit of Time Bound Promotion Scheme till their retirement. They preferred several representations to the respondent authorities but the same are of no avail and lying pending with them. He further submits that the controversy involved in this case has already been put at rest by the order of this Court passed in the case of K.L. Asre Vs. State of M.P and others, [W.P. No.1070/2003(s)] decided on 07/11/2005. Similar law was made applicable in the case of Samaypal Mahasangh, Bhopal Vs. State of M.P and others, [W.P. No.23195/2003(s)] and certain other cases.

3. On the other hand, learned Govt. Advocate submitted that earlier the decision in the case of K.L. Asre (supra) was assailed in the Apex Court by way of SLP bearing No. 8436/14 which suffered dismissal on 4/7/2014. It is submitted that thereafter the decision rendered by the Division Bench of this Court at Indore in W.A.No.371/2015 (State of M.P. Vs. Madanlal Sharma) decided on 11/9/2015 which was primarily based on the decisions of Teju Lal Yadav Vs. State of M.P. reported in ILR (2009) MP 1326 and K.L.Asre

Signature Not Verified (supra) was challenged in SLP No. 10282/2016 which is pending consideration Signed by: ASHISH CHAURASIA Signing time: 01-11-2023 06:54:43 PM

till date.

4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, but without commenting on the merits of the case, present petition is disposed of with the following directions :

(i) Petitioners are directed to prefer a fresh representation containing all the necessary material facts to demonstrate parity of his case with the case of K.L.Asre (supra) within a period of one month from today;

(ii) The respondents No.2 and 3 on receipt of the said representations, are directed to decide the same in accordance with law within a period of 60 days thereafter from the date of receipt of said representations along with a copy of this order;

( i i i ) In case, the petitioners are found to be similarly placed when compared with K.L.Asre's case, the benefit as admissible to him in terms of K.L.Asre's case be extended to them within a further period of 60 days; and

(iv) In case, the competent authority does not find parity as aforesaid, then, representations of the petitioners be decided by speaking order and the same be communicated to the petitioners as expeditiously as possible.

(v) The aforesaid order shall remain subject to final decision taken in SLP No. 10282/2016 (supra) by the Apex Court.

6. Accordingly, the present petition stands disposed of in above terms.

(ANAND PATHAK) JUDGE Rashid

Signature Not Verified Signed by: ASHISH CHAURASIA Signing time: 01-11-2023 06:54:43 PM