Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ashok Saxena vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 6 February, 2024
Author: Vivek Rusia
Bench: Vivek Rusia
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA
ON THE 6 th OF FEBRUARY, 2024
WRIT PETITION No. 29385 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
ASHOK SAXENA S/O LATE GANGA PRASAD SAXENA,
AGE: 72 YEARS, OCCUPATION: PENSIONER, R/O: 7/1,
SARDARPURA LAXMIBAI MARG, UJJAIN (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI SANJAY JAMINDAR - ADVOCATE.)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH, THROUGH
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, PUBLIC HEALTH AND
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT, VALLABH
BHAWAN, BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. ENGINEER-IN-CHIEF, PUBLIC HEALTH AND
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT, M.P. BHOPAL
(MADHYA PRADESH)
3. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PUBLIC HEALTH AND
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT, SANDHARAN
KHAND NAGAR PALIKA NIGAM, UJJAIN
(MADHYA PRADESH)
4. JOINT DIRECTOR, TREASURY ACCOUNTS AND
PEN SION , UJJAIN DIVISION UJJAIN (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI SUDHANSHU VYAS - ADVOCATE APPEARING ON BEHALF OF
ADVOCATE GENERAL.)
This petition coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, heard finally.
The petitioner has filed the present writ petition praying for direction to
the respondents to count his past services as a daily rated employee.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was initially
appointed as daily rated employees in the respondent-department. Thereafter
subsequently his services have been regularized. However, the respondents are
not counting his services as daily rated employee for qualifying services.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that similar controversy
has been decided by this Court in W.P. No.16878/2010 (Sudama Prasad
Pandey Vs. State of M.P. & others ) decided on 16/12/2010. Against the
said order an appeal was filed by the State Government which was also
dismissed and the order of this Court has also been maintained by the Apex
Court.
4. Learned counsel also submits that for redressal of his grievance, the
petitioner has submitted representation through M.P. Class-III Govt. Employees
Association. He further submits that a liberty may be granted to the petitioner
to file fresh representation before the Engineer-in-Chief, Public Health &
Engineering Department, Bhopal (respondent No.2) and the Competent
Authority / respondent No.2 may be directed to decide the same in light of the
judgment passed by this Court in the case of Sudama Prasad Pandey (supra).
5. Learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents - State of
Madhya Pradesh does not oppose the said prayer.
6. In view of aforesaid submissions made by learned counsel for the
parties, without commenting on merit of the matter, the writ petition is disposed
of with direction to the petitioner to submit a comprehensive and detailed
representations along with certified copy of this order before respondent No.2
within a period of fifteen (15) days from the date of receipt of certified copy of
this order. On receiving such a representation, Competent Authority /
respondent No.2 shall consider and decide the same, in accordance with law
and in view of the judgment passed by this Court in the case of Sudama
Prasad Pandey (supra) within a period of three months and if the case of the
petitioner is squarely covered by the said judgment, benefit be extended to the
petitioner.
7. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the writ petition is disposed
of.
(VIVEK RUSIA)
JUDGE
rcp
