Dhyan Singh Bargahi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2024 Latest Caselaw 28180 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Dhyan Singh Bargahi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 14 October, 2024

Author: Vishal Mishra

Bench: Vishal Mishra

          NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:51231




                                                               1                             WP-30010-2024


                             IN     THE      HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                   AT JABALPUR
                                                         BEFORE
                                           HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL MISHRA
                                                 ON THE 14th OF OCTOBER, 2024
                                                WRIT PETITION No. 30010 of 2024
                                         DHYAN SINGH BARGAHI AND OTHERS
                                                      Versus
                                     THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
                           Appearance:
                             Shri D.K. Shukla - Advocate for petitioners.
                             Shri Akash Malpani - Panel Lawyer for respondents/State.

                                                                   ORDER

The present petition has been filed seeking the following reliefs :-

"(i) Therefore, it is most humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to :-

(ii) Issue a writ of Mandamus commanding the respondents to produce the entire service records in the interest of justice.

(iii) Issue a writ of Mandamus commanding the respondents to pay the revision of minimum pay scale as per VIIth Pay Commission/M.P. Revision of Pay Rules, 2017 as revised pay scale extending the benefit of 7th pay revised scale with all consequential benefits, in the interest of justice.

(iv) Issue a writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to make payment of increased minimum pay scale to the petitioners from date 01.01.2016 of the post occupied by the petitioners and also pay the dues of the amount of the revised pay scale along with interest.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:51231

2 WP-30010-2024

(v) This Hon'ble Court may kindly be please to direct respondents to grant the minimum pay scale to the petitioner as per the 7th pay recommendation w.e.f 01.01.2016 with all the consequential benefits.

(vi) Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court finds the petitioners entitled to be also granted.

(vii) Cost of the petition.

It is pointed out that the controversy involved in the case is put to rest by the judgment passed in the case of Kishori Lal Prajapati and Others Vs. State of M.P. and others (Writ Petition No.5332/2010) decided on 03.07.2012 which has attained finality upto the Hon'ble Supreme Court, thereafter the petitioner approached the authorities by filing representation which is still pending consideration. An innocuous prayer is made to direct

the authorities to consider and decide the pending representation. It is submitted that this Court has already disposed of similar petition being WP No.27994 of 2024 vide order dated 27.09.2024.

State counsel has no objection to the innocuous prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioners but he submits that as the petitioners belong to different divisions, therefore, they may be directed to file separate individual representations to the respondent No.2 and in turn they will consider and decide the same, in accordance with law.

The prayer appears to be reasonable.

Under these circumstances, this petition is disposed off by directing the petitioners to file individual separate comprehensive representations to the respondent No.2-Chief Engineer, Water Resources Department, Bhopal within a period of 15 days from today and in turn, the respondent No.2 is

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:51231

3 WP-30010-2024 directed to dwell upon the same and pass a self contained speaking order, in accordance with law and communicate the outcome to the petitioners within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of such representations.

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

Accordingly, the petition is disposed off.

(VISHAL MISHRA) JUDGE

VV