Raghvendra Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 20023 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Raghvendra Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 29 November, 2023

                                                            1
                                IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                             AT JABALPUR
                                                      BEFORE
                                           HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN
                                             ON THE 29 th OF NOVEMBER, 2023
                                             WRIT PETITION No. 29145 of 2023

                           BETWEEN:-
                           RAGHVENDRA SINGH S/O LATE RAGHUNANDAN
                           SINGH, AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
                           RETIRED GOVT.SERVANT R/O B-229, AMERALD PARK
                           CITY, BAGSEWANIYA ,NEAR AMS HOSPITAL, DISTRICT
                           BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                        .....PETITIONER
                           (BY SHRI MUKESH KUMAR MISHRA -ADVOCATE)

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

                           2.    SUB     DIVISIONAL          OFFICER (REVENUE)
                                 MANGANWA     TEHSIL        MANGANWA    REWA
                                 (MADHYA PRADESH)

                           3.    JAGENDRA SINGH S/O MOHAN SINGH PARIHAR,
                                 AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, OCCUPATION: EX
                                 PATWARI AMALKI R/O VILLAGE KHUTEHI
                                 DISTRICT REWA (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                     .....RESPONDENTS
                           (BY SHRI PUNEET SHROTI- GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)

                                 This petition coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
                           following:
                                                             ORDER

This petition has filed seeking writ to direct the respondent No.2 to decide the application for reinstatement of respondent No.3 by considering the

objection filed by the petitioner.

The facts of the case are that the petitioner is father of deceased lady who committed suicide by hanging within seven months of her marriage. Prosecution of family of the son-in-law took place under Section 304-B, 306 and 498-A of IPC. The present respondent No.3 is elder brother of husband of the deceased. The family members of son-in-law of the petitioner including the respondent No.3 were convicted in Session Trial No.169/2010 by the first Additional Sessions Judge, Khandwa. Thereafter, in CRA No.1786 of 2014, the judgment of conviction was set aside and the appellants therein including present respondent No.3 were acquitted by this Court.

The grievance of the petitioner seems that after judgment of conviction, the respondent No.3 was terminated from government service but now after acquittal in appeal from the High Court, he has filed an application to his employer i.e respondent No.2 for reinstatement.

It is further ground of the petitioner that SLP is pending against the judgment of acquittal passed in appeal by the High Court wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has issued notice vide order dated 18.05.2023 (Annexure-P/3). Thus, it is contended by the petitioner that the respondent No.3 is not entitled for reinstatement. He prays for a direction to the respondent No.2 to take his objection Annexure-P/5 in consideration.

In my opinion, the termination of services of respondent No.3 and his application for reinstatement is a service dispute between the respondent No.3 and his employer i.e respondent No. 2. The petitioner has no locus to object in this matter. It is expected that the respondent No.2 shall decide the pending representation for reinstatement strictly in accordance with law.

With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition stands disposed of.

(VIVEK JAIN) JUDGE Prar