Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1245 (MP)

State of M. P. v. Sanjay Vyas

2014-09-30

ALOK ARADHE, RAJENDRA MENON

body2014
ORDER 1. They are heard on I. A. No. 7382/14 an application filed for condoning the delay of about one years six months in filing of this appeal. 2. The delay is sought to be condoned on the ground of administrative process required for settlement of the matter. 3. Keeping in view the reasons indicated in the application and finding it to be bonafide, the application is allowed. 4. Learned counsel for the parties are heard on the question of admission of this appeal. 5. Challenge in this appeal is made to an order dated 6.11.2012 passed by the writ Court in W. P. No. 18179/2012 whereby certain benefit of an order passed by the State Administrative Tribunal in O. A. No. 128/99 Smt. Savitri Bai v. State of M. P. was directed to be extended to the respondents. 6. Respondent was appointed as daily wages employee at Work Charge and Contingency Establishment and worked for about three years and, thereafter, when regular pay of the post was not granted, the writ petition was filed and based on the judgment in the case of Smt. Savitri Bai v. State of M.P., the writ Court directed for grant of benefit. 7. Being aggrieved thereof, the State Govt. has filed this writ appeal. 8. Shri Rahul Jain, learned Dy. Adv. General invites our attention to an order passed by the State Administrative Tribunal in the case of Smt. Savitri Bai (supra) available at page 17 of the paper book and emphasized that in the case of Smt. Savitri Bai (supra), a specific finding was recorded that even though, she was appointed as a daily wages employee but as she was working on the vacant post, the direction was issued. In the case of the respondents, there is no material to show that they are working on the vacant posts and, therefore, benefit of Smt. Savitri Bai (supra) cannot be granted to them. 9. Even though, Shri Deepak Raghuvanshi argued that the employee has acquired the status of the work charge employee, the fact remains that the writ petition was disposed of without notice to the State Govt. and without examining the question of law and in the absence of any vacancy being available, the principle of Smt. Savitri Bai (supra) can be applied or not and whether the respondents have attained the status of work-charge employees and are entitled for the benefit? and without examining the question of law and in the absence of any vacancy being available, the principle of Smt. Savitri Bai (supra) can be applied or not and whether the respondents have attained the status of work-charge employees and are entitled for the benefit? 10. The writ Court had only directed for considering the claim of the respondent for grant of benefit and, therefore, we deem it appropriate to direct the State Govt. to examine the matter in the light of the law laid down in the case of Smt. Savitri Bai (supra) and other cases, give a liberty to the respondents to establish their case and, thereafter, take a decision by a speaking order. 11. Without interfering into the matter on merit, the order passed by the learned writ Court in W. P. No.18179/2012 directing extension of grant of similar benefit as has been granted in the case of Smt. Savitri Bai (supra) is quashed, instead, liberty is granted to the appellants to decide the case of the respondent in the light of the law laid down in the case of Smt. Savitri Bai (supra), give an opportunity to the respondent employee to explain and to show that he was appointed against a regular vacancy and had acquired certain right due to the working in the Work Charged and Contingency Paid Establishment and he is entitled to the benefit as per the case of Smt. Savitri Bai (supra), thereafter pass a fresh order within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order along with a detailed claim from the respondents. 12. With the aforesaid, the appeal stands disposed of. .........................