Madhya Pradesh High Court
Shobha Ram Kushwah vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 24 May, 2024
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VINAY SARAF
ON THE 24 th OF MAY, 2024
WRIT PETITION No. 13325 of 2024
BETWEEN:-
SHOBHA RAM KUSHWAH S/O LATE SHRI BHOLA RAM,
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, OCCUPATION: KULI, PHE
GWALIOR, R/O BAHODAPUR GWALIOR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(SHRI SARTAJ SINGH TOMAR, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, PUBLIC HEALTH
ENGINEERING DEPTT., GOVT. OF M.P.,
MANTRALAYA, VALLABH BHAWAN, BHOPAL
(MADHYA PRADESH)
2. ENGINEER IN CHIEF, PUBLIC HEALTH
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT, JAL BHAWAN,
BANGANGA ROAD, TT NAGAR, BHOPAL
(MADHYA PRADESH)
3. CHIEF ENGINEER, PUBLIC HEALTH
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT MORAR, GWALIOR
(MADHYA PRADESH)
4. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER PUBLIC HEALTH
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT WATER SUPPLY
MAINTENANCE, DIVISION 2, MOTIJHEEL,
GWALIOR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
( SHRI SOHIT MISHRA - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)
Th is petition coming on for hearing this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
Present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been
preferred by the petitioner seeking a direction to respondents to consider the
claim of petitioner for grant of Kramonnati and to extend the benefit of Time
Bound Promotion Scheme to them with monetary benefits in the light of
judgment rendered by coordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No.1070 of 2003
(K.l.Asre Vs. State of M.P.) on 07.11.2005.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner who is
retired employee, was appointed way back in the year 1981 as Kuli and
continuously worked till their retirement. But he has neither been extended the
benefit of Kramonnati nor the benefit of Time Bound Promotion Scheme till his
retirement. He preferred several representations to the respondent authorities but
the same are of no avail and lying pending with them. He further submits that the
controversy involved in this case has already been put at rest by the order of
this Court passed in the case of K.L. Asre Vs. State of M.P and others, [W.P.
No.1070/2003(s)] decided on 07/11/2005. Similar law was made applicable in
the case of Samaypal Mahasangh, Bhopal Vs. State of M.P and others, [W.P.
No.23195/2003(s)] and certain other cases.
O n the other hand, learned Govt. Advocate submitted that earlier the
decision in the case of K.L.Asre (supra) was assailed in the Apex Court by way
of SLP bearing No. 8436/14 which suffered dismissal on 4/7/2014. It is
submitted that thereafter the decision rendered by the Division Bench of this
Court at Indore in W.A.No.371/2015 (State of M.P. Vs. Madanlal Sharma)
decided on 11/9/2015 which was primarily based on the decisions of Teju Lal
Yadav Vs. State of M.P. reported in ILR (2009) MP 1326 and K.L.Asre (supra)
was challenged in SLP No. 10282/2016 which is pending consideration till date.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, but
without commenting on the merits of the case, present petition is disposed of
with the following directions :
(i). Petitioners are directed to prefer a fresh representation containing all
the necessary material facts to demonstrate parity of his case with the case of
K.L.Asre (supra) within a period of one month from today;
(ii) The respondents No.2 and 3 on receipt of the said representations,
are directed to decide the same in accordance with law within a period of 60
days thereafter from the date of receipt of said representations along with a
copy of this order;
( i i i ) In case, the petitioners are found to be similarly placed when
compared with K.L.Asre's case, the benefit as admissible to him in terms of
K.L.Asre's case be extended to them within a further period of 60 days; and
(iv) In case, the competent authority does not find parity as aforesaid,
then, representations of the petitioners be decided by speaking order and the
same be communicated to the petitioners as expeditiously as possible.
(v) The aforesaid order shall remain subject to final decision taken in
SLP pending before Apex Court.
(VINAY SARAF)
JUDGE
Rohit
