Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 996 (MP)

State of M. P. v. Subhash Jain

2012-10-05

G.D.SAXENA, S.K.GANGELE

body2012
Judgment Shri Gangele, J.;- 1. This appeal has been filed by the appellants-State against the order dated 18-05-2011 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 5896 of 2010 (S). The respondent made a reason before the writ Court that he was entitled to receive Senior Selection Grade, however, that had been denied to him vide order dated 3rd July, 2009. The writ Court allowed the writ petition of the respondent with a direction to consider the case of the respondent for grant of Senior Selection Grade. 2. Learned Deputy Advocate General appearing on behalf of the appellants-State has contended that in view of the order dated 11th October, 1999 it is necessary to have completed two refresher courses for the duration of three-four weeks for the purpose of entitlement of Senior Selection Grade. Since the respondent did not fulfil the aforesaid requirement, hence, he is not eligible to receive the Senior Selection Grade. 3. The respondent filed the documents before the writ Court as Annexure P/6. From the aforesaid documents, it is clear that the respondent participated in UGC Sponsored Refresher Courses from 25th July, 2005 to 14th August, 2005, 16th November, 2002 to 06th December, 2002 and 4th February 2002 to 24th February, 2002, hence, he had completed the refresher course as required by the order dated 11th October, 1999. 4. Learned Deputy Advocate General has further contended that the aforesaid refresher courses have been completed by the respondent before the period of grant of Selection Grade. 5. From the perusal of the order dated 11th October, 1999, it is clear that there is no requirement that an employee has to complete refresher course within the stipulated period. The requirement is that the employee has to complete the refresher course. In our opinion, that requirement has been fulfilled by the respondent. In this view of the matter, there is no merit in this appeal. It is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. Because we have already passed an order on merit, hence, it is not necessary to pass an order on the application i.e. I.A. No. 1078/2012 for condonation of delay.