Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ashok Kumar Neekhra vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 3 April, 2024
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 3 rd OF APRIL, 2024
WRIT PETITION No. 7742 of 2024
BETWEEN:-
ASHOK KUMAR NEEKHRA S/O LATE SHRI BABULAL
NEEKHRA B.L. NEEKHRA, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: PENSIONER RETIRED PRADHAN
ADHYAPAK GOVT MIDDLE SCHOOL SAIPURA SHIVPURI
DISTT. SHIVPURI , SANKUL KENDRA GOVT H.S.
SCHOOL NO 2 SHIVPURI, DDO, BEO SHIVPURI DISTT.
SHIVPURI R/O MIG 14 SHIVANAGAR DO BATTI
CHAURAHA CHHATRI ROAD SHIVPURI (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI R.P.SINGH AND SHRI NEERAJ SHRIVASTAVA - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL
SECRETARY SCHOOL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT
VALLABH BHAWAN BHOPAL MP (MADHYA
PRADESH)
2. ZILA SHIKSHA ADHIKARI SHIVPURI ZILA
SHIKSHA ADHIKARI KARYALAY SHIVPURI
DISRICT SHIVPURI (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. ZILA KOSHALAY ADHIKARI SHIVPURI ZILA
SHIVPURI (MADHYA PRADESH)
4. ZILA PENSION ADHIKARI SHIVPURI DISTRICT
SHIVPURI (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI N.S.TOMAR - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)
This petition coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
The present petition is preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution
seeking following reliefs.
7-1 fiVh'kuj }kjk izLrqqr fjV fiVh'ku dks Lohdkj djrs gq,]
fiVh'kuj dks leku osrueku esa gh lgk;d f'k{kd ls iz/kku
v/;kid izkFkfed fo|ky; ds in ij vkns'k fnukad 04-11-09 ds
}kjk rFkk f'k{kd ¼;w-Mh-Vh-½ ds in ls iz/kku v/;kid ek/;fed
fo|ky; ds in ij inkSUufr vkns'k fnukad 21-06-2012 ds }kjk
iznku fd;s tkus mijkar ewyHkwr fu;e 22Mh ,oa e/;izns'k 'kklu
foRr foHkkx Hkksiky ds vkns'k dzekad ,Q 1&5@2007@fu;e@pkj
Hkksiky] fnukad 09-04-2007 ¼vusDtj ih&5½ ,oa dzekad
8&5@1176@2011@fu;e@pkj Hkksiky] fnukad 31 fnlEcj 2011
¼vusDtj ih&6½ ds dze esa ,oa ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; ds leku
izdj.k vkj-,l- fldjokj fo:} e/;izns'k jkT; vU; esa ikfjr fn'kk
funsZ'k 2004 ,e-ih-,y-ts- 397 o vU; leku fn'kk funsZ'kksa ds ikyu
ds dze esa lekurk ls ,Q-vkj- 22 Mh dk ykHk vkns'k fnukad 04-11-
09 ,oa vkns'k fnukad 21-06-2012 ls iznku@Lohd`r djrs gq, iqu%
osru fu/kkZj.k dj osru ds vUrj dh jkf'k o lsokfuo`fr mijkar
lsokfgr ykHk o ekfld isa'ku dk iquZfu/kkZj.k dj vUrj dh jkf'k
C;kt lfgr Hkqxrku iznku fd;s tkus ds vkns'k fjLiksMsUVl~ foHkkxh;
izkf/kdkfj;ksa dks 30 fnol esa iznku djus dh d`ik djsaA
7-2 vU; mfpr jsV] vkns'k vFkok U;k;fgr esa fiVh'kuj ds i{k esa
tkjh djus dh d`ik djsa] izdj.k O;; jsLiksUMsUV~l ls fnyk;s tkus
dh d`ik djsaA
2. It is the submission of counsel for the petitioner that benefit of
Fundamental Rule 22-D has not been provided to the petitioner when he was
promoted from the post of U.D.T. to Headmaster (Middle School). That
benefit is yet to be given in light of judgment of this Court in the case of
R.S.Sikarwar Vs. State of M.P. and others (2004) 3 MPLJ 397 . The said
judgment was followed in Ram Siya Sharma Vs. State of M.P. and ors. (2013)
1 MPHT 127. He preferred a representation in this regard and same is required
to be decided.
3. Learned counsel for the respondent/State opposed the prayer but fairly
submitted that if any representation is pending then same shall be taken care of
by the authority concerned.
4. Heard.
5. Considering the submission, this petition is disposed of with direction
to the petitioner to submit representation along with certified copy of this order
before the authority concerned within 15 days, in turn, competent authority shall
consider the case of the petitioner within three month from the the date of
submission of his representation.
6. Petition stands disposed of accordingly.
(ANAND PATHAK)
JUDGE
Ashish*
