Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 376 (MP)

Pramila Dubey v. State of M. P.

2020-03-04

ATUL SREEDHARAN, SANJAY YADAV

body2020
JUDGMENT Yadav, J. -- 1. These two writ appeals under section 2 (1) of the Madhya Pradesh UchchaNyayalaya (Khand Nyayapeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005, are directed against the order dated 28.6.2018 passed in Writ Petition No. 5722/2015. 2. These appellants were respondents in Writ Petition No. 5722/2015. The writ petition at the instance of respondent-Ramakant Shukla was directed against the order dated 15.4.2015 which related to counseling of Adhyapak /Sahayak Adhyapak working in the Municipal Corporation, Singrauli. The counseling was for promotion and was in furtherance to Letter No. f’k{kk@LFkkŒ@2015@ Lok ShikshanSanchanalaya’s Letter No. f’kŒdŒ@ ABCEF/2015. The grievance raised by the petitioner was against the present appellants who were within the zone of consideration for promotion and the same was illegal as they did not belong to the Municipal Corporation, Singrauli but were the employees of Panchayat. 3. Evidently, these appellants were absorbed in the services of Municipal Corporation, Singrauli. The appellants Smt. Pramila Dubey, Suresh Kumar Mishra and Sandeep Tripathi were absorbed by orders dated 3.7.2010 and 6.6.2011. The order dated 3.7.2010 speaks thus: ^^dk;kZy; ftyk iapk;r flaxjkSyh ¼eŒçŒ½ flaxjkSyh fnukad 03-07-2010 vkns’k Øekad@2644@ftyk iapk;r@f’k{kk@v/;kŒ@2010 lfpo] eŒçŒ ’kklu Ldwy f’k{kk foHkkx ea=ky;] cYyHkHkou Hkksiky ds vkns’k Øekad ,Q 1&29@2008@20&1 Hkksiky fnukad 3-5-2008 rFkk eŒçŒ ’kklu Ldwy f’k{kk foHkkx ea=ky;] cYyHk Hkou Hkksiky ds i= Øekad ,Q 1&42@2008@20&1 Hkksiky] fnukad 15-4-2008 esa mYysf[kr fn’kk&funsZ’k ds rkjrE; esa o"kZ 2005 HkrhZ fu;e ds rgr fu;qDr lafonk ’kkyk f’k{kd oxZ&2 dks muds uke ds lkeus dkye uEcj 5 esa vafdr fnukad ls v/;kid laoxZ dk osrueku 4000&125&6500 ds U;wure osru 4000@& ij fu;qfDr djus ,oa eŒçŒ ’kklu Ldwy f’k{kk foHkkx ea=ky;] cYyHk Hkou Hkksiky ds vkns’k Øekad ,Q 1&4@07@chl&1 Hkksiky fnukad 28-6-2007 ds dafMdk 2-4 ¼[k½ ds vuqlkj v/;kid laoxZ esa fu;qfDr fnukad ls ’kklu }kjk ’kkldh; deZpkfj;ksa dks fn;s tkus okyk orZeku esa çpfyr eagxkbZ HkRrk ,oa mDr fnukad ds i’pkr~ le;≤ ij eŒçŒ ’kklu ds deZpkfj;ksa dh egaxkbZ HkRrs esa o`f) gksxh rn~uqlkj v/;kid loaxZ dks Hkh eagxkbZ HkRrs dk ykHk fn;s tkus dk çko/kku gSA mijksDr mfYyf[kr fn’kk&funsZ’k ,oa xfBr Nkuchu lfefr dh vuq’kalk fnukad 3-7-2010 ds vuqlkj o"kZ 2005 ds fu;e ds rgr ftyk iapk;r flaxjkSyh vUrxZr fu;qDr lafonk ’kkyk f’k{kd oxZ&2 dks uhps fy[ks uke ds lEeq[k fooj.k vuqlkj vè;kid laoxZ esa ifjoh{kk ij fu;qfDr@lafofy;u fd;k tkrk gS---------A** 4. The order passed on 6.6.2011 is also in similar terms. 5. The order passed on 6.6.2011 is also in similar terms. 5. It is further evident from the petition filed by Shri Ramakant Shukla that besides seeking quashment of order dated 15.4.2015, following reliefs were also sought: (a) To issue an appropriate writ thereby quashing and setting aside the seniority list prepared by the respondent No. 3 as on 1.4.2014 dated 23.12.2014. (b) To issue an appropriate writ thereby quashing the order dated 6.6.2011 by which the services of respondent No. 5 have been transferred/ merged in the Municipal Corporation,Singrauli. (c) To issue an appropriate writ thereby quashing and setting aside all the orders passed by the respondents whereby the services of respondents No. 5 to 7 have been merged in the respondent No. 3 Municipal Corporation. (d) To issue an appropriate writ thereby directing the respondents to place the petitioner at proper seniority above respondents No. 5 to 7 and consider his case for promotion on the post of Varishth Adhyapak Maths /Physics. 6. Two reliefs at (a) to (d) were sought on the contention that being initially appointed in the Janpad Panchayat, they have no right of absorption in the services of Municipal Corporation,Singrauli which is different employer than Janpad Panchayat. 7. It is observed from the order of absorption of the appellants that it was in furtherance to Government of Madhya Pradesh : School Education Department’s order No. F 1-29/2008/20-1, Bhopal dated 3.5.2008 and order No. 1-42/2008/20-1 dated 15.4.2008. However, neither of the parties have brought on record these orders. Even the petitioner, though he had questioned the absorption of the appellants, has not filed these two orders. Be that as it may, learned Single Judge, though, has observed in paragraph 10 of the impugned order that the services of the petitioner are governed by the Madhya Pradesh Nagreeya Nikay Adhyapak Samvarg (Employment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2008 and that of present appellants by the Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Samvida Shala Shikshak (Conditions of Employment and Contract) Rules, 2005 and that their services could not have been merged in the Municipal Corporation service. The aspect of grant of No Objection by the State Government for the said merger also finds mention in paragraph 12 of the impugned order. But, nothing substantial turns on these observations, as learned Single Judge did not interfere with the absorption order dated 3.7.2010 and 6.6.2011. The aspect of grant of No Objection by the State Government for the said merger also finds mention in paragraph 12 of the impugned order. But, nothing substantial turns on these observations, as learned Single Judge did not interfere with the absorption order dated 3.7.2010 and 6.6.2011. Only the order dated 15.4.2015 has been quashed with the direction to prepare fresh seniority list as on 1.4.2014 and to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Varishth Adhyapak Mathematics and Physics by constituting the review DPC and if he is found fit, grant him promotion with consequential benefits. 8. Since the status of these appellants in the Municipal Corporation on their absorption has not been interfered, we do not perceive any error in directing the Corporation to consider the case of the petitioner-Ramakant Shukla. 9. These appeals are disposed of finally in above terms. No costs.