Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1162 (MP)

Madhukar Selodkar v. State of M. P.

2017-11-15

J.K.MAHESHWARI

body2017
ORDER 1. With the consent of learned counsel for parties heard finally. 2. Stating that the petitioners are also similarly placed persons that of Dharam Pal Chaurasiya and others, who have approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No.2858/2005 (S), which was disposed of finally vide order dated 23.11.2007 the petitioners are also entitled to be given the benefit of order passed by Coordinate Bench of this Court at Indore in Writ Petition No.6773/2006(S) (Smt. Prerna w/o Shri Promod Koranne v. State of M.P. and others) decided on 26.1.2007, the petitioners have prayed for similar directions : 3. It is seen that the aforesaid writ petition was decided in the following manner : “17. Consequently these petitions are allowed. The petitioners are entitled to derive the benefit of second Kramonnati according to the terms and conditions mentioned in the circular dated 21.3.1983, 19.4.1999, 2.11.2001 and 3.9.2005. Accordingly, these petitions are disposed of with the following directions : (i) Clause-3 of policy dated 3.9.2005 fixing the cut of date 1.8.2003 to grant the benefit of second Kramonnati to the teachers is arbitrary, discriminatory, hence quashed. (ii) Teachers of Education Department or Tribal Welfare Department held entitled to get the benefit of Kramonnati under the policy dated 21.3.1983, 19.4.1999 and 2.11.2001, in accordance with the terms and conditioned as specified therein. (iii) In view of the said directions, if the orders of recovery passed by the Government against petitioners are quashed, and if any amount is recovered from them for said reasons be refunded back to them within three months, with interest @ 6% per annum, on failure to comply the said directions within the aforesaid time, the interest @ 9% per annum will be levyable. (iv) In some of the cases, the benefit of second Kramonnati has not been allowed to the petitioners, however, on due consideration of their cases, the respondents are directed to do the needful in accordance with the policy dated 21.3.1983, 19.4.1999, 2.11.2001 and 3.9.2005 and settled their claim including post retiral and pensionary benefits within the period of 6 months from today and the arrears thereof be released along with permissible amount of interest under the law.” 4. In the cases of various employees, who had retired from service and in whose cases recovery was effected, a Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No.2595/2004 had passed an order on 24.3.2005 quashing orders of recovery and directing for refund of the amount already recovered keeping in view the order passed by this Court in the case of Smt. Prerna (supra), so also in Writ Petition (S) No.2595/2004. 5. When the matter came up for hearing learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that this petition may be disposed of directing the respondents to examine the petitioners’ claim in the light of the aforesaid directions issued in the case of Smt. Prerna w/o Shri Pramod v. State of M.P. and others (supra). 6. The aforesaid prayer has not been opposed by learned Government Advocate. 7. Accordingly this petition is disposed of directing the respondents to examine the claim of petitioners in the light of the order passed by Indore Bench of this Court in case of Smt. Prerna w/o Pramod v. State of M.P. and other (supra). In case, after examination it is found that the claim of the petitioners is similar, the petitioners be also extended the same benefits within the time fixed in the said order from the date of receipt of copy of this order by the respondents. 8. If for any reason whatsoever, the State Government finds that the benefit cannot be extended, the authorities are free to record reasons for the same and pass a speaking order. In view of the foregoing, petition stands disposed of.