Madhya Pradesh High Court
Kamlesh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 12 October, 2023
Author: Vijay Kumar Shukla
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA
ON THE 12 th OF OCTOBER, 2023
WRIT PETITION No. 18284 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
1. KAMLESH S/O SHRI BHERULAL NAGAR, AGED
ABOUT 56 YEARS, OCCUPATION: ASSTT.TEACHER
R/O GOVT. PRIMARY SCHOOL SAWERKHEDI
DISTT.UJJAIN (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. PRAKASHCHANDRA S/O SEVARAM MALVIYA,
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
ASSISTANT TEACHER GOVT. PRIMARY SCHOOL
KHEDA CHITAVALIYA SANKUL BICHHDOD
TEHSIL GHATIYA DIST. UJJAIN (MADHYA
PRADESH)
3. SUNDERLAL S/O PUNJA MALVIYA, AGED ABOUT
56 YEARS, OCCUPATION: ASSTT. TEACHER GOVT.
HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL SUVASA TEH.
BARNAGAR DIST. UJJAIN (MADHYA PRADESH)
4. OMPRAKASH BAMNAVAT S/O SHRI NARAYANJI,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, OCCUPATION: ASSTT.
TEACHER GOVT. GIRLS HIGHER SECONDARY
SCHOOL FREEGANJ UJJAIN (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(SHRI SANJAY JAMINDAR - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH SECRETARY
VALLABH BHAWAN BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER UJJAIN
(MADHYA PRADESH)
3. DISTRICT TREASURY OFFICER UJJAIN (MADHYA
PRADESH)
4. JOINT DIRECTOR TREASURY ACCOUNTS AND
PEN S ION UJJAIN DIVISION UJJAIN (MADHYA
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SOURABH
YADAV
Signing time: 12-10-2023
17:52:26
2
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(MS.BHARTI LAKKAD- GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)
T h is petition coming on for orders this day, t h e cou rt passed the
following:
ORDER
The petitioner has challenged the legality and validity of the order dated
28.05.2010 passed by District Education Officer denying the claim of the
petitioner for two increments on the basis of passing B.Ed/BTI examination.
2. The petitioners have earlier filed WP No.28112/2009 (s). The said
petition was disposed off by order dated 05.02.2009 directing the respondents
to consider and decide and take appropriate decision on the petitioners'
representations in the light of the judgment passed by this Court in the case of
Asha Saxena and Archana Vyas.
3. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the petition suffers
from delay and latches. The impugned order was passed in the year 2010. It is
also argued that the petitioner is not entitled for two advance increments in view
of the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of State
of MP VS. Manoj Sharma reported in 2007 (3) MPLJ 69 and Division
Bench order in WA No.1019/2021 (Baldev VS. State of MP and Ors). It is
also argued that the judgment passed in the case of Asha Saxena would not
apply to the case of the applicant as Asha Saxena was appointed in the year
prior to 1993 before amendment in the rules.
4. Since the cause of action relates to payment of increments, which is
recurring cause of action, therefore, the petition is not dismissed on the ground
of delay and latches.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SOURABH
YADAV
Signing time: 12-10-2023
17:52:26
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in compliance to the
order passed in the case of Asha Saxena and Archana Vyas, the similarly
situated employees have been granted benefit of increments who had entered
into service with B.Ed examination. It is submitted that Archana Vyas has been
granted benefit and vide order dated 14.01.2009, the other similarly situated
employees have also been granted benefit. He submits that Rajendra Paliwal has
been granted benefit by order dated 14.01.2009 in compliance to the order of
High Court dated 13.04.2005 and against the said order, writ appeal has also
been dismissed in WA No.232/2006.
6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the
impugned order dated 28.05.2010, it is manifest that the said authority has not
passed a detailed and reasoned order taking into consideration the judgment
passed in the case of Asha Saxena and Archana Vyas.
7. Accordingly, the present petition is disposed off with liberty to the
petitioners to submit a detailed and comprehensive representations before the
District Education Officer afresh within the period of one month from today
and if such representation is filed within the aforesaid period, the said authority
shall pass the reasoned and speaking order within the period of four months
from the date of filling of fresh representation in the light of the judgment
passed in the case of Asha Saxena and Archana Vyas and also the judgment
relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondent/state.
7. The result of the same shall be communicated to the petitioners. It is
made clear that this court has not decided the entitlement of the petitioners on
merits.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SOURABH
YADAV
Signing time: 12-10-2023
17:52:26
(VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA)
JUDGE
Sourabh
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SOURABH
YADAV
Signing time: 12-10-2023
17:52:26
