Abrar Ali vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 16827 MP

                                                            1
                            IN    THE       HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                 AT JABALPUR
                                                          BEFORE
                                                    JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL
                                              ON THE 10 th OF OCTOBER, 2023
                                              WRIT PETITION No. 7353 of 2023

                           BETWEEN:-
                           ABRAR ALI S/O AIJAZALI, AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS,
                           OCCUPATION: LAST SERVED AS TIMER KEEPER
                           (WORK CHARGE) IN PUBLIC WORK DEPARTMENT
                           HOUSE NO 1889 VIP ROAD KHAANUGAON GADHI
                           MASJIT BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                        .....PETITIONER
                           (BY SHRI A.K. SINGH - ADVOCATE)

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

                           2.    THE ENGINEER IN CHIEF PUBLIC WORKS
                                 DEPARTM ENT PLOT NO. 27-28, ARERA HILLS
                                 BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

                           3.    THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PUBLIC WORK
                                 D EPARTM EN T (DIVISION NO. II) JAWAHAR
                                 CHOWK, SHADE NO. 06 DISTRICT BHOPAL
                                 (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                     .....RESPONDENTS
                           (BY SHRI ANKIT AGRAWAL - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)

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

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that his grievance is covered by the judgment of this Court passed in W.P.(S) No.1070/2003 (K.L. Asre vs.

Signature Not Verified Signed by: RAJESH KUMAR JYOTISHI Signing time: 10/10/2023 5:04:27 PM

State of M.P.). The respondents have erred in not extending the benefit of said judgment to the petitioner and unnecessary compelled him to file this petition. The order dated 14.02.2023 (Annexure P/5) may be set aside and his representation may be directed to be decided by taking into account the judgment of this Court in K.L. Asre (supra).

Shri Ankit Agrawal, learned Government Advocate has no objection to this innocuous prayer.

The order dated 14.02.2023 (Annexure P/5) is set aside. It is directed that if petitioner prefers a representation along with copy of judgment in K.L. Asre (supra), the respondents shall treat that judgment as judgment in rem and

consider the claim of petitioner in the light of said judgment and take a decision in accordance with law within 90 days. If authorities come to the conclusion that petitioner is similarly situated and entitled for similar benefit, the claims be settled within aforesaid time.

Before parting with the matter, I deem it proper to observe that this is an avoidable piece of litigation. The judgment passed in K.L. Asre (supra) was a judgment in rem. A model employer should extend the benefit of a judgment in re m to all the similarly situated persons. A person cannot be put to a comparative disadvantageous position merely because he did not knock the doors of the Court. In the case of Inder Pal Yadav and others vs. Union of India and others (1985) 2 SCC 648, it was held that:-

"Therefore, those who could not come to the Court need not be at a comparative disadvantage to those who rushed in here. If they are otherwise similarly situated, they are entitled to similar treatment, if not by anyone else at the hands of this Court."

In a case of this nature where on a principle a judgment in rem is passed, Signature Not Verified Signed by: RAJESH KUMAR JYOTISHI Signing time: 10/10/2023 5:04:27 PM

this Court hopes that the respondents will rise to the occasion and will take effective steps to ensure that similarly situated persons are granted similar benefits and they are not unnecessarily compelled to knock the doors of this Court.

With the aforesaid observations, the petition is disposed of.

(SUJOY PAUL) JUDGE rj

Signature Not Verified Signed by: RAJESH KUMAR JYOTISHI Signing time: 10/10/2023 5:04:27 PM