The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Upendra Singh Tomar
2025 Latest Caselaw 5065 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Upendra Singh Tomar on 4 March, 2025

Author: Anand Pathak

Bench: Anand Pathak, Hirdesh

          NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:4820




                                                                 1                                  WA-484-2025
                             IN      THE      HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                    AT GWALIOR
                                                         BEFORE
                                           HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND PATHAK
                                                            &
                                             HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE HIRDESH
                                                    ON THE 4 th OF MARCH, 2025
                                                    WRIT APPEAL No. 484 of 2025
                                      THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
                                                       Versus
                                                UPENDRA SINGH TOMAR
                          Appearance:
                             Shri A.K. Nirankari- learned Public Prosecutor for appellants-State.
                             Shri Devesh Sharma- learned counsel for respondent.

                                                                     ORDER

Per: Justice Anand Pathak

Heard on I.A. No.2009/2025, an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.

As per office note, the appeal is barred by 83 days. On due consideration, for the the reasons stated in the application and in the interest of justice, I.A. is allowed.

Delay in filing the appeal is hereby condoned.

I.A. is closed.

With the consent of parties, matter heard finally. The present appeal under Section 2 (1) of the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 is preferred by the appellants/State being crestfallen by the order dated 30/08/2024 passed by learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 17046/2022.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:4820

2 WA-484-2025

It is grievance of the appellants/State that due to over sight, reply in WP No. 17046/2022 could not be filed and Chief Engineer, Public Health Engineering Department was directed to remain present before the learned writ Court. Chief Engineer could not explain the factual details before the Court and undertaking of said officer was purportedly recorded for compliance. Therefore, this appeal has been preferred.

Counsel for respondent fairly submits that in the case o f Ram Naresh Rawat Vs. Ashvini Ray and others ((2017) 3 SCC 436) and subsequent judgment of Division Bench of this Court in the case of WA No. 150/2019 (State of M.P. & others Vs Ashwani Kumar Shrivastava) dated 05/09/2019 , this Court dismissed the appeal preferred by the appellants and held that

employee is entitled to get benefit from the date of initial classification in light of judgment of Apex Court in the case of Ram Naresh Rawat (Supra) .

After going through rival submissions, it appears that no case for interference is made out prima facie because appellants-State has to comply with the order passed by Apex Court in the case of Ram Naresh Rawat (Supra), Kamta Prasad Vs State of M.P. & others, ILR (2022) M.P. 1846 and in WA No. 150/2019 State of M.P. & others Vs Ashwani Kumar Shrivastava dated 05/09/2019 whereby direction given to give benefit from the date of initial date of classification.

However, while upholding the order of learned writ Court, the only modification/amendment required is that undertaking of Chief Engineer, Public Health Engineering Department be treated as withdrawn because it is the State which has to fulfill the obligation of grant of benefit from the

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:4820

3 WA-484-2025 initial date of classification.

With the aforesaid modification regarding removal of undertaking given by Chief Engineer, remaining contents of order shall remain intact. The appeal stands allowed to that extent. Compliance be done within two months from the date of passing of this order.

                                   (ANAND PATHAK)                               (HIRDESH)
                                       JUDGE                                      JUDGE
                          Prachi