Manish Saprare vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2024 Latest Caselaw 15849 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Manish Saprare vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 28 May, 2024

Author: Vishal Mishra

Bench: Vishal Mishra

                                                              1

                           IN    THE        HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                 AT JABALPUR
                                                      BEFORE
                                        HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL MISHRA
                                                  ON THE 28 th OF MAY, 2024
                                               WRIT PETITION No. 408 of 2024

                          BETWEEN:-
                          MANISH SAPRARE S/O LATE SHRI MANAK LAL
                          SAPARE, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, OCCUPATION: DAILY
                          WAIGER R/OHOUSE NO 234 KABIDPURA SHAHANABAD
                          BHOPAL DISTRICT BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                            .....PETITIONER
                          (BY SHRI VIDHYA SHANKAR MISHRA - ADVOCATE)

                          AND
                          1.    T H E STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
                                PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF
                                HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE VALLABH
                                BHAWAN BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

                          2.    THE COMMISSIONER DIRECTORATE OF AYUSH
                                SATPURA BHAWAN BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

                          3.    CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER / PRINCIPAL PANDIT
                                KHUSHILAL      SHARMA         GOVERNMENT
                                AYURVADIC     COLLEGE BHOPAL (MADHYA
                                PRADESH)

                                                                                         .....RESPONDENTS
                          (BY SHRI SOURABH SONI - PANEL LAWYER)

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

The petitioner has filed the present petition seeking the following reliefs:

"(i) A writ or direction in nature of Mandamus may kindly be issued thereby direction the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioner in compliance of the Judgment of the Supreme Court in

Secretary, State of Karnataka and others vs. Uma Devi and others (2006) 4 SCC 1 and also as per GAD circulars dated 07.10.2016 (Annexure P/3) along with ancillary financial and other benefits.

(ii) Any other appropriate writ or orders/direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

(iii) Cost may kindly be shouldered on the respondents."

It is the case of the petitioner that he was appointed vide order dated 31.12.2008 on collector rate basis and is continuously working in the department for more than 13 years. Pursuant to the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Uma Devi (supra) and in view of the circular dated 07.10.2016, the petitioner has filed a representation Annexure P/4 for regularization, which is pending consideration. An innocuous prayer is made

to direct the respondent No.2 to consider and decide the pending representation expeditiously.

Learned counsel appearing for the State has no objection to the innocuous prayer made by the counsel for the petitioner.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the petition is disposed off by directing the petitioner to file a copy of the representation (Annexure P/4) along with a certified copy of this order before the respondent No.2, who in turn is directed to dwell upon the same and pass a self contained speaking order within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, if not already decided and communicate the outcome to the petitioner.

Needless to mention that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.

Accordingly, the petition is disposed off. No order as to costs. Certified copy as per rules.

(VISHAL MISHRA) JUDGE sj