Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 554 (MP)

Pramod Kumar Dubey v. Union of India

2010-05-14

S.K.GANGELE

body2010
Judgment ( 1. ) Petitioner has filed this petition challenging his order of allocation to the State of Chhattisgarh, Annexure P-1 and also the order of rejection of his representation vide order dated 24/4/2007, Annexure P-2. ( 2. ) The petitioner was appointed as Assistant Surgeon on 27/5/1982. Subsquently, the post was redesignated as Medical Officer. The petitioner was placed at Serial No. 2189 in the gradation list of Medical Officers showing the position as on 1/10/2000. In the aforesaid gradation list respondents No. 5 and 6 were placed at Serial No. 2214 and 2215. ( 3. ) Anew State of Chattisgarh has been carved out after bifurcation of the State of Madhya Pradesh in accordance with the provisions of State Reorganisation Act 2000, hereinafter referred to as the Act of2000. As per section 71 of the Act of2000 a tentative list with regard to allocation of the employees was published. In the aforesaid list the petitioner was shown to be allocated to the State of Chhattisgarh. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted a representation mentioning in detail that he is senior person and junior persons to the petitioner were retained in the State of Madhya Pradesh. The representation of the petitioner was rejected. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an application before the M.P. State Administrative Tribunal. The Tribunal granted stay in favour of the petitioner. After abolition of the Tribunal, the application was transferred to this Court and registered as W.P. No. 7643/03. However, the matter was compromised between the parties before the Lok Adalat with the following terms of settlement :- "Learned counsel and parties appearing in this petition agree that the case is squarely covered by an order passed by this Court in W.P. No. 2156/2003 (Brajendra Kumar Soni and others v. State of M.P. and others). Both the parties agree that in this case also similar direction be issued. As agreed to by the parties, following settlement is recorded in the matter: _(A) The petitioners may file fresh representation to Government of India, Department of personnel and Training, Ministry of personnel, public Grievances and Pensions Loknayak Bhawan, Khan market, New Delhi (State Re-organisation Cell) within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. This representation shall be sent by the concerned employees through proper channel i.e. through their concerning department. This representation shall be sent by the concerned employees through proper channel i.e. through their concerning department. Petitioners shall also send one copy of their representations, apart from through proper channel directly to Central Government on above address by speed post, within the aforesaid period. Along with this representation petitioners will enclose their previous representations and necessary authentic documents (if any) for ready reference to the respondents. The petitioner in the representation will give his correct and complete postal address and specify his present place of posting. If he is working because of some interim order of the High Court Tribunal or otherwise, he will specify this in the representation. (B) On receiving the representations by the Central Government, the comment of both the Governments will be called. The representations sent by the employee through departments shall accompany comments of the concerned departments on forwarding the representations, touching all the points involved in the representations. This will be done by the concerning departments within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of the representations from petitioners or from the Central Government for comments. It will be open to the Central Government to seek further information from the State Government and on such requisition being made from the Central Government, the concerned State Government will supply the same expeditiously not later than 15 days from the date of receipt of such communication. (C) The concerned Government will also send its comments within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of the notices in this regard to the Central Government. (D) On receipt of the aforesaid, Central Governments will decide each representation after considering the merits and the grievances raised in the representations within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the comments from the State Governments. The Central Government shall be within the powers either to consider the representations itself or to constitute an Advisory Committee in accordance with the provisions of Section 71. (E) The decision of the Central Government will be communiated to the employees forthwith through the concerning Department who will receive the acknowledgement of the concerned employee on the communication. The Central Government shall be within the powers either to consider the representations itself or to constitute an Advisory Committee in accordance with the provisions of Section 71. (E) The decision of the Central Government will be communiated to the employees forthwith through the concerning Department who will receive the acknowledgement of the concerned employee on the communication. If the employee is not available or avoiding the communication, the concerned department Will send the decision to the employee by Registered A/D Post on the address given by the employee on the representation and this will be deemed sufficient compliance of the order. The decision of the Central Government will be given effect to after 15 days from the date of communication of the orders to the concerned employee. The employee will be allowed 15 days time either to comply with the order, if the employee feels aggrieved with the aforesaid decision, he/she will be free to approach the appropriate forum for the redressal of the grievance. (F) It is made clear that while Central Government deciding the representation of the petitioner finds appropriate to afford some opportunity of hearing of the concerned employee, it will be within the discretion of the Central Government to afford such opportunity to the employee for the redressal of grievance. (G) The employee who have joined their Successor State will continue in the same State. Those employees who were not relieved or were permitted to rejoin or continue by interim order of the Tribunal or otherwise shall be permitted to continue in the State in the same cadre (as per the allocation), till the decision on the representation as directed hereinabove. Parties also agree that the order that may be passed by the Central Government if adverse to the employee shall be given effect to only after a period of one month and the employee, if aggrieved by the order shall have liberty to assail the same in accordance with law." ( 4. ) In terms of the aforesaid settlement the petitioner submitted a detailed representation . Copy of the representation has been filed as Annexure P-10. He has categorically stated that his allocation to the State of Chhattisgarh is illegal and against the para-meters and guidelines issued by the Central Government. ) In terms of the aforesaid settlement the petitioner submitted a detailed representation . Copy of the representation has been filed as Annexure P-10. He has categorically stated that his allocation to the State of Chhattisgarh is illegal and against the para-meters and guidelines issued by the Central Government. It is further stated that junior persons to the petitioners, as stated in para 12 of the representation, were retained in the State of Madhya Pradesh, however, vide order dated 24.4.2007 the representation of the petitioner has been rejected. It has been mentioned in the order that the representation of the petitioner is hereby rejected. No reasons have been assigned in rejecting the representation. This order is contrary to settlement arrived at before the Lok Adalat, because, it has specifically mentioned in the settlement that the respondents shall decide the representation after applying the mind as it is obligatory on the part of the respondents to assign reasons in rejecting the representation of the petitioner. Hence, the order is contrary to law because petitioner has been serving in the State of Madhya Pradesh after his allocation to the State of Chhattisgarh for last 10 years. Hence, in such circumstances, it would not be just and proper to remand the case to the respondents to decide the representation afresh. 4. Consequently, the petition of the petitioner is allowed. Impugned order, Annexure P-1 with regard to allocation of the petitioner to the State of Chhattisgarh and order, Annexure P-2 dated 24.4.2007 rejecting the representation of the petitioner are hereby quashed. Looking to the facts of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.