Suryakant Awasthi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2024 Latest Caselaw 14142 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Suryakant Awasthi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 14 May, 2024

Author: Pranay Verma

Bench: Pranay Verma

                                                            1
                           IN    THE       HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                 AT INDORE
                                                     BEFORE
                                       HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRANAY VERMA
                                                 ON THE 14 th OF MAY, 2024
                                             WRIT PETITION No. 3198 of 2022

                          BETWEEN:-
                          SURYAKANT AWASTHI S/O LATE SHRI VEDNARAYAN
                          AWASTHI, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
                          GOVT. SERVICE, R/O:1203, SECTOR-C, BDA RAJABHOJ
                          PHASE-2, GONDARMAU, HUZUR, BHOPAL (MADHYA
                          PRADESH)

                                                                                         .....PETITIONER
                          (SHRI AKASH SHARMA - ADVOCATE

                          AND
                          1.    THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL
                                SECRETARY VALLABH    BHAWAN,  BHOPAL
                                (MADHYA PRADESH)

                          2.    DIRECTOR  GENERAL     OF  POLICE, POLICE
                                HEADQUARTERS, BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

                          3.    INSPECTOR GENERAL           OF    POLICE, BHOPAL
                                (MADHYA PRADESH)

                          4.    INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE UJJAIN RANGE,
                                UJJAIN (MADHYA PRADESH)

                          5.    SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, DEWAS (MADHYA
                                PRADESH)

                                                                                      .....RESPONDENTS
                          (SHRI A.S. PARIHAR - PANEL LAWYER)

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

By this petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,

the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:-

"(i) That, the Hon'ble Court be pleased to allow the petition.

(ii) To, direct the respondent to grant the Seniority to the petitioner w.e.f. 20.10.2006 on the post of Inspector.

(iii) To, direct the respondent to grant all consequential benefits to the petitioner forthwith.

(iv) Any other relief, which the Hon'ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case, be granted to the petitioners."

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the case of the petitioner is identical to case of similarly situated employees which have been allowed by this Court. He has brought to the notice of this Court order dated

06.12.2016 passed in WP No.14141/2012 (Niranjan Sharma Vs. State of M.P. & Ors. ) and order dated 12.01.2024 passed in WP No.23675/2021 (Vinod Kumar Dixit Vs. State of M.P.). It is submitted that the petitioner is also entitled to similar treatment and his case also deserves to be considered in light of the aforesaid decisions.

3. Learned counsel for the respondent / State has submitted that the case of the petitioner shall be decided in accordance with law and an appropriate decision there upon shall be taken.

4. In the available facts of the case, it is directed that the representation (Annexure P-6) dated 10.11.2021 of the petitioner be considered and decided by the respondents / competent authority within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order by passing a reasoned and the speaking order. Petitioner is also directed to produce before the competent authority copies of the aforesaid judgments on which he places reliance within a period of 15 days from today and any other document on which he may wish to

rely upon. It shall also be open for him to file a fresh representation within the aforesaid period which, if filed, shall also be considered and decided as above. If the petitioner is found entitled to the benefits as claimed for by him in this petition, then the same be extended to him within a period of two months from the date of decision.

5. With the aforesaid, without expressing any opinion on merits, petition stands disposed off.

(PRANAY VERMA) JUDGE Anushree