Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 569 (MP)

Asha v. State of M. P.

2003-04-21

K.K.LAHOTI

body2003
JUDGMENT The learned counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 2 again seeks time to file return in this case on 4.4.2003, same prayer was made, but the aforesaid prayer was allowed as last opportunity. As respondents 1 and 2 inspite of last opportunity, have not filed return, in the circumstances, their right to file return is closed. The learned counsel appearing for petitioner contends that the case of the petitioners are squarely covered as per decision of this Court in Writ Petition No. 2939/1989 (Dr. P.K. Shrivastava and others v. State of M.P. and others) decided on 26.9.2000. The aforesaid order was challenged by respondents/State before the Division Bench of this Court in L.P.A. but the aforesaid L.P.A. was dismissed on 26.2.2001. Thereafter, the State preferred an S.L.P. before the Apex Court which was decided on 12.7.2001 by following order: "After we heard learned counsel for the petitioners, we find that despite numerous opportunities given to the petitioners, no counter-affidavit to the writ petition was filed by the petitioners before the High Court. Therefore, they are not entitled to dispute the correctness of the facts stated in the writ petition. At this stage, Mr. Ranjit Kumar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents stated that the respondents who were the petitioners before the High Court would be satisfied if revised scale is granted to them w.e.f. 3.5.1989. We feel that the said statement of learned counsel is fair, looking into the facts and circumstances of this case. We, therefore, dispose of the petition in terms of the statement made by learned counsel for respondents, leaving .the question of law open to be decided in an appropriate case." The learned counsel appearing for petitioners contends that the case of the petitioners is squarely covered by the aforesaid order and the petitioners are also entited for similar relief which has been allowed in the case of W.P. No. 2939/1989. The learned counsel for respondents 5 and 7 contend that the case of craft teachers is not covered by the aforesaid order and in respect of craft teachers, the matter is sub judiced before this Court. They drew the attention of this Court in this regard to Annexure P/S wherean endorsement No. 2 speaks for the similar contention. The learned counsel for respondents 5 and 7 contend that the case of craft teachers is not covered by the aforesaid order and in respect of craft teachers, the matter is sub judiced before this Court. They drew the attention of this Court in this regard to Annexure P/S wherean endorsement No. 2 speaks for the similar contention. In view of the aforesaid contention, this petition is finally disposed of with following directions: (1) Respondents will enforce the orders (Annexures P/3 and P/4) passed in the writ petition and in the L.P.A. and affirmed by the Apex Court vide annexure P/5 in SLP (Cill) No. 9904/2001 dated 12.7.2001 to the petitioners who are squarely covered by the aforesaid order will be granted the same benefit which was allowed in the case of Dr. P.K. Shrivastava (supra). The respondents will also examine the case of petitioners 6,8,9 and 18. If their case is covered by the aforesaid order of Dr. P.K. Shrivastava, then the same benefit be granted to the aforesaid persons and if their case is not covered, then respondents will await the decision of High Court in this regard and will follow the same and extend the same benefit to those petitioners, as per endorsement No.2 given in Annexure P/8 in reapect of craft teachers. If the respondents find that the petitioners are not entitled for the same· benefit, then they will afford opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and after extending opportunity of hearing, will pass a reasoned and speaking order in this regard. All the aforesaid exercises be done within 90 days from the date of communication of this order to the respondents. Certified copy as per Rules.