Udai Singh vs State Of Madhya Pradesh & Ors

In this petition u/Art. 226 of the Constitution the petitioner challenges Annexure-P/1 dated 16/1/2018 by which his prayer for grant of benefit of Kramonnati in terms of the decision of this court in the case of K.L.Asre Vs. State of M.P. & others (W.P.No.1070/2003), decided on 7/11/2005 has turned down.

This is second visit of the petitioner.

2.1 In the earlier round of litigation the petitioner filed W.P.No.7108/16 which was disposed of on 21/10/2010 in following terms:-

"21.10.2016

Shri Alok Bandhu Shrivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner.

Shri C.R. Roman, learned Government Advocate for respondents/ State.

It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that controversy involved in this case has already been put at rest by the order of this Court passed in the case of K.L. Asre Vs. State of M.P and others, [W.P. No.1070/2003(s)] decided on 07/11/2005. Similar law was made applicable in the case of Samaypal Mahasangh, Bhopal Vs. State of M.P and others, [W.P. No.23195/2003(s)]. This Court has considered the aspect of granting the benefit of Karmonnati to such persons in the aforesaid case in the following manner:-

"......As far as the extending the benefit of kramonnati is concerned for the employees who are working in the work charge establishment, the matter has been decided by this Court vide order dated 07/11/2005, W.P.(s) No.1070/2003 in K.L.Asre Vs. State of M.P. In case any individual employee, who is member of the petitioner's association is still aggrieved by non-grant of promotion or not extending the benefit of time bound promotion scheme, i.e kramonnati vetanman, he may approach the department and seek the same in the light of the order passed on 07/11/2005 in W.P.(s) No.1070/2003......"

Certain other writ petitions have also been decided in terms of the order passed by this Court in the aforesaid writ petition.

In view of the aforesaid submission and in view of the fact that the controversy is already put at rest by this Court in the decision rendered by this Court in the case of K.L. Asre (supra), this writ petition is disposed of with the similar direction. Let the claim of the petitioner be considered in terms of the directions given by this Court in the case of K.L.Asre (supra) and be decided within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order passed today.

In case the petitioner is found entitled to said benefit, the necessary orders granting that benefit be passed within the aforesaid period.

With the aforesaid, the Writ Petition is finally disposed of."

It is not disputed by the rival parties that earlier the decision in the case of K.L.Asre (supra) was assailed in the Apex Court by way of SLP bearing No. 8436/14 which suffered dismissal on 4/7/2014. It is submitted that thereafter the decision rendered by the Division Bench of this court at Indore in W.A.No.371/2015 (State of M.P. Vs. Madanlal Sharma) decided on 11/9/2015 which was primarily based on the decisions of Teju Lal Yadav Vs. State of M.P. reported in ILR (2009) MP 1326 and K.L.Asre (supra) was challenged in SLP No. 10282/2016 which is pending consideration till date.

In that view of the matter, the present petition without commenting upon merits of the case is disposed of with the following directions.

(i) The petitioner is directed to prefer a fresh representation containing all the necessary material facts to demonstrate parity of his case with the case of K.L.Asre (supra) within a period of one month from today;

(ii) The respondents No.2 and 3 on receipt of the said representations, are directed to decide the same in accordance with law within a period of 60 days thereafter from the date of receipt of said representations along with a copy of this order;

(iii) In case, the petitioner is found to be similarly placed when compared with K.L.Asre case, the benefit as admissible to him in terms of K.L.Asre's case be extended to him within a further period of 60 days; and

(iv) In case, the competent authority does not find parity as aforesaid, then, representation of the petitioner be decided by speaking order and the same be communicated to the petitioner as expeditiously as possible.

(v) The aforesaid order shall remain subject to final decision taken in SLP No. 10282/2016 (supra) by the Apex Court.

No cost.