Madhya Pradesh High Court
Suresh Chandra Sharma vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 23 November, 2023
Author: Anand Pathak
Bench: Anand Pathak
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND PATHAK
ON THE 23 rd OF NOVEMBER, 2023
CONTEMPT PETITION CIVIL No. 1784 of 2020
BETWEEN:-
SURESH CHANDRA SHARMA S/O LT VIDHYARAM
SHARMA, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
RETIRED R/O- ARYA NAGAR GWALIOR ROAD BHIND
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI DEVENDRA SHARMA - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL
SECRETARY MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY
WELFARE, GOVT. OF MP VALLABH BHAWAN
BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. SHRI SATHISH KUMAR S. DIRECTOR HEALTH
SERVICES SATPURA BHAWAN BHOPAL (MADHYA
PRADESH)
3. SHRI ANIL GOYAL CIVIL SURGEON CUM CHIEF
HOSPITAL SUPERINTENDENT BHIND (MADHYA
PRADESH)
4. SHRI H N MISHRA DISTRICT TREASURY
OFFICER, BHIND (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI N.S.TOMAR - ADVOCATE)
Th is petition coming on for hearing this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
1. The instant contempt petition has been preferred by the petitioner for
alleged non-compliance of the order dated 13.01.2020 passed in Writ Petition
No.765/2020 (Suresh Chandra Sharma Vs. State of M.P. and others), whereby
direction was given to the respondents to consider the case of petitioner
regarding next increment which was due on 01.07.2017.
2 . Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that matter has already
been decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Director (Admn.
and HR) KPTCL & Ors. vs. C.P. Mundinamani & Ors., reported in 2023
SCC OnLine SC 401.
3. Learned counsel for the respondents fairly submitted that respondents
are in process of compliance and since dispute has been decided at apex level
by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, therefore, respondents have no other
option but to comply.
4 . Considering the submissions and specially the fact that dispute has
been decided by Apex Court in the case of Director (Admn. and HR)
KPTCL & Ors. (supra) as well as by Full Bench of this Court in the case of
Ratanlal Rathore Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh and others (Writ
Petition No.4118 of 2020) decided on 28.07.2023.
5. It is apparently clear that respondents have to comply the order in light
of the judgments referred above.
6 . It is expected that respondents/State functionaries shall rise to the
occasion and take a policy decision in this regard, so that compliance of order
of Supreme Court as well as Full Bench of this Court can be ensured and to
avoid the multiplicity of litigation.
7 . Needful be done within two months as an outer limit otherwise
petitioner shall be at liberty to file fresh petition for said non-compliance.
However; it is expected that respondents shall not give any opportunity to the
petitioner to file another contempt petition and matter shall be decided within
two months.
8. Accordingly, petition stands disposed of in above terms.
(ANAND PATHAK)
JUDGE
Rashid
