Amrit Shankar Pandey vs State of M.P. and others

This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, challenges the order dated 01.07.2007 (Annexure-P/6) and

31.07.2007 (Annexure-P/7).

In short, the relevant facts are that the petitioner earlier

filed an original application before M.P. State Administrative

Tribunal, wherein he claimed relief of regular pay scale and

regular status. The said case was transferred to this Court

and was re-numbered as W.P. No.10090/2003. This Court on

17.11.2003 disposed of the said petition.

The respondents were required to examine the claim of

the petitioner in the light of aforesaid finding given by

this Court. Since the said order was not complied with,

the petitioner filed Contempt Petition No.3592/2005.

During the pendency of the said petition, impugned

orders have been passed and, therefore, this petition has been filed. This Court on 31.08.2007 granted interim

order against the impugned orders herein.

Shri Sunil Choubey, learned counsel for the petitioner

criticized the impugned order by contending that the

directions given by this Court in W.P. No.10090/2003

were not considered at all by the respondents. The order

dated 01.07.2007 is passed by Shri A.R. Pathak, Director,

State Institute of Science Education/respondent No.3.

The said order is assailed by taking this Court to

Annexure-R/5, the report of the Committee, it is

submitted that as per this report, the petitioner was

found eligible for consideration. Shri A.R. Pathak was the

Chairman of this Committee. However, a decision taken

by the Committee is different than the order passed by

the said authority.

Prayer is opposed by Mrs. Sonali Shrivastava, learned

P.L. for the respondents/State. By placing reliance on the

return, she submits that a co-employee, whose case was

also considered with the petitioner, namely, Shri Babbo

Lal Patel filed Writ Petition No.9535/2007 before this

Hon''ble Court, which was disposed of without there being

any interference on the cancellation order in relation to the said employee. It is submitted that the petitioner is

similarly situated. It is further pointed out that the order

dated 01.07.2007 passed in the case of Shri Babbo Lal

Patel was upheld and interference was only made to the

extent of recovery. Hence, on the strength of this order, it

is submitted that the petitioner is similarly situated and

he must receive similar treatment.

No other point is pressed by learned counsel for the

parties.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length

and perused the record.

As per Annexure-R/5, a committee considered the

claim of three persons, namely, Shri Raghvendra Singh,

Shri Babboo Lal Patel, Shri Amrit Shankar Pandey

(Petitioner). The committee was consisting of Shri A.R.

Pathak, Director, Shri A.N. Dubey -Principal, Shri

Dhirendra Chaturvedi, District Education Officer, Shri

Arvind Chincholikar-Assistant Director, Legal Cell and

Smt. K.K. Dubey - Principal Government Education

College, Jabalpur. The findings of the Committee in

relation to petitioner and Shri Babbu Lal Patel is

reproduced herein in juxtaposition.

"VERNACULAR MATTER OMITTED"

Findings related to petitioner:

"VERNACULAR MATTER OMITTED"

[Emphasis Supplied]

A comparative reading of the findings in cases of two employees will make it clear that for Shri Babboo Lal

Patel, the finding of the Committee was against him and

committee did not recommend his case for regularization,

whereas the Committee opined in favour of the

petitioner. Despite specific query from the Bench,

learned P.L. for the State was unable to show as to how

while passing a final order dated 01.07.2007 (Annexure-

P/6), the same Director has taken a different view and

decided not to regularize the petitioner and in turn,

decided to inflict recovery on the petitioner. In other

words, if findings of the Committee was in favour of the

petitioner (wherein interestingly, the Director Shri

Pathak was also Member/Chairman) on the basis of what

material he has taken a different view in relation to the

petitioner while passing order dated 01.07.2007 is not

discernible. In all fairness, the respondents should have

disclosed the basis on the strength of which order dated

01.07.2007 was passed against the petitioner. It is clear that the claim of regularization was not recommended in

favour of Shri Babboo Lal Patel, whereas the

recommendation was made in favour of petitioner. Thus,

both the cases are not similar in nature and, therefore,

petitioner''s claim cannot be be thrown to wind on the

basis of the order by this Court passed in the case of Shri

Babboo Lal Patel. Thus it is clear that there is no cogent

basis for passing the order dated 01.07.2006 (Annexure-

P/6) and the consequential order dated 31.07.2007

(Annexure-P/7).

Resultantly, the orders dated 01.07.2007 and

31.07.2007 are set aside. The respondents are directed to

consider the case of the petitioner in the light of

directions issued in W.P. No.10090/2003 and take a fresh

decision in accordance with law within 60 days. It is

made clear that this Court has not expressed any view on the merits of the case.

Petition is allowed to the extent as indicated above.

No cost.