Madhya Pradesh High Court
The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Rameshmani Tripathi on 22 March, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:15334
1 RP-1496-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN
ON THE 22nd OF MARCH, 2025
REVIEW PETITION No. 1496 of 2024
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Versus
RAJKARAN SINGH AND OTHERS
WITH
REVIEW PETITION No. 1489 of 2024
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Versus
RAMESHMANI TRIPATHI
REVIEW PETITION No. 1490 of 2024
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Versus
MANGALDEEN NAPIT
REVIEW PETITION No. 1491 of 2024
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Versus
SHUKLAL DHOBI AND OTHERS
REVIEW PETITION No. 1494 of 2024
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Versus
MRS. LAXMI BAI CHOUDHARY AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Abhijeet Awasthy- Deputy Advocate General for the applicants.
Shri Narendra Kumar Mishra-Advocate for respondent in R.P. No. 1489/2024.
Shri Gautam Kourav- Advocate for the respondent No. 8.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: 453
Signing time: 02-04-
2025 10:50:52
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:15334
2 RP-1496-2024
ORDER
These bunch of review petitions have been filed for review of common
order dated 23.02.2024 whereby all the writ petitions were allowed. Since
writ petitions were allowed while adverting to facts taken from W.P. No.
13684/2018, therefore, for adjudication of the present review petitions facts
are taken from Review Petition No. 1496/2024 which arises from W.P. No.
13684/2018.
2. By the order dated 23.02.2024, this Court has allowed the writ
petitions holding that the cases of the writ petitioners stand at par with the
case of Ramnaresh Prajapati (W.P. No. 9827/2012) which has been
confirmed by the Division Bench in W.A. No. 197/2016 This Court held that
the cases of the petitioners are not at any different footing from the case of
Ramnaresh Prajapati (supra) and therefore, the writ petitions were allowed in
similar terms by noting that the judgment in the case of Ramnaresh Prajapati
has been confirmed upto the Hon'ble Supreme Court and SLP was rejected
with cost of Rs. 1,00,000/-.
3. While pressing the review petition, the learned counsel for the
applicant State has raised the ground that an error has kept in the order dated
23.06.2024 passed by this Court because reliance on the case of Ramnaresh
Prajapati decided in W.P. No.9827/2012 and as confirmed in W.A. 197/2016
is misplaced because in the said case the employees who were initially
appointed as part-time sweeper were subsequently reappointed as
contingency paid employees under the work-charged and contingency paid
establishment pursuant to the Recruitment Rule 1979 for the employees
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:15334
3 RP-1496-2024
working in work-charged and contingency paid establishment. However, the
writ petitioners in the present cases were appointed as part-time sweeper
somewhere in the 1985-86 on Collectorate rates and thereafter in the year
1998 they were given promotion on the post of contingency paid
establishment. Therefore, the cases of present writ petitioners are sought to
be distinguished from the case of Ramnaresh (supra) on the ground that the
said case was of appointment whereas the present case is of promotion which
was illegally granted to the present writ petitioners.
4. Upon perusal of the aforesaid aforesaid ground raised by learned
counsel for the State and on perusal of the record of the present case as well
as the record of W.A. No. 197/2016 and W.P. No. 9827/2012, this Court has
carefully gone through the order in case of present writ petitioners which is
placed on record as Annexure P/4 to the writ petition which as under:-
संयु संचालक पशु िच क सा सेवाये र वा संभाग र वा के प मांक
5445/ था0/र वा/, दनांक 25.9.95 एवं वभागीय ग ठत पदो नित
सिमित के ारा चयिनत ी राजकरण िसंह अंशकालीन व छाकार/पशु
िच क सालय / पशु औषधालय गो व दगढ क पदो नित पूण कालीन/
सांड र क के पद पर उनक उप थती दनांक से जला य ारा
िनधा रत मािसक दर पर ित माह पर पशु िच क सालय /पशु
औषधालय दारो के पूण प से अ थाई तौर पर क जाती है । संबंिधत
कमचार आदे श जार होने के दनांक से 15 दवस के भीतर नई
पद थापना थान म उप थत होग। अ यथा यह पदो नित आदे श ्
िनर त माना जायेगा।
It is evident from perusal of the aforesaid order that the writ petitioner
in the present case has been granted promotion on the post of Bull
Attendant.
5. This Court has also gone through the record of W.A. No. 197/2016 and
W.P. No. 9827/2012 which was the case of Ramnaresh Prajapati. The order
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:15334
4 RP-1496-2024
in the case of Ramnaresh Prajapati is Annexure P/2 in the aforesaid writ
petition No. 9827/2012 issued vide letter No. 9564-17 dated 30.06.2004 by
the Deputy Director Veterinary Services, District Umaria and the operative
portion of the said order reads as under:-
कायालय उप संचालक पशु िच क सा सेवाय जला उम रया (म० ०)
मांक 9564/ था0/04/ उम रया, दमाक 30/6/04
-: आदे श :
म य दे श शासन सामा य शासन वभाग के प रप माक 3-1/०२/३/एक दनाक
12/06/02 एप प रप माक सी3/18/01/3/एक दनाक 23 दस बर 02 के प रपालन मे ग ठत
वभागीय छानबीन पदो नित सिमित के अनुसंसा के आधार पर इस जले म कायरत अंशकाल
व छाकार के उनके नाम के सम दशाये गये पद पर जला य उम रया ारा िनधा रत दर पर
पदो नित करते हुए उ ले खत सं थाओ म पद थ कया जाता है ।
वे अपना उप थत ितवेदन संबंिधत सं था के पशु िच क सा सहायक सं पक/प0 िच0 व0
अिध0/सहायक पशु िच क सा े अिधकार को आदे श सा रत होने के 15 दवस के भीतर
अिनवाय प से तुत करगे। अ यथा आदे श वमेव िनर त माना जायेगा ।
6. From a perusal of the aforesaid order passed in the case of
Ramnaresh Prajapati (supra), it is evident that the said person had also been
given promotion in the same manner in which the present writ petitioners
have been given promotion.
7. Therefore, there is no error apparent on the face of record in the
order dated 23.02.2024 allowing the writ petitions on the ground of parity
with the case of Ramnaresh Prajapati (supra). The review petitions sans
merit, stand dismissed.
(VIVEK JAIN)
JUDGE
MISHRA
