Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Laxminarayan Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh

Laxminarayan vs The State of Madhya Pradesh

Type Court Judgment Court Madhya Pradesh Decided Jul 25, 2012
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1046876

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Decided On
Subject
Land Acquisition

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Land Acquisition

Key legal issue
Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Laxminarayan

Advocate Shri. R.P.Mishra

Respondent

The State of Madhya Pradesh

Excerpt

1 w.p.no.9977/12 25/07/12 shri r.p.mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner. shri sanjeev kumar singh, learned panel lawyer for the state. petitioner was appointed as a 'daily wages employee' in the year 1998. his services were terminated on 14/02/2000 and, thereafter, he has not been granted any benefit, he has filed this writ petition. inter alia contending that claim of the petitioner has to be considered in accordance with the circular dated 21/01/04, he is entitled to be reinstated in service, he has not been reinstated and other similarly situated persons have been reinstated. from the records, it is clear that petitioner has worked only for a period of 2 years from 1998 to 2000 and he claims benefit in accordance with the circular dated 21/01/04. this court had already held in various cases, that in view of the constitution bench judgment of the supreme court in the case of secretary, state of karnataka and others versus uma devi and others.2006 (4) scc 1 , no direction for reinstatement of a person can be granted and as per the circular dated 21/01/04 issued by the state govt. and the said circular stands superseded by virtue of the aforesaid judgment and cannot be enforced not in view of the law laid down in the case of uma devi (supra) and the subsequent circular issued by the govt. that being so, not no mandamus can be issued for grant of benefit as per the circular dated 21/01/04. that apart, if retrenchment compensation and other benefits has not been granted to the petitioner, he shall be at liberty to take 2 the benefit by representing it to the department or raising an industrial dispute. not after a period of 12 years of his termination, interference into the matter by this court is not called for. accordingly, finding no ground to interfere into the matter, the petition is dismissed. (rajendra menon) judge vy/-

Full Judgment

1 W.P.No.9977/12 25/07/12 Shri R.P.Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner.

Shri Sanjeev Kumar Singh, learned Panel Lawyer for the State.

Petitioner was appointed as a 'Daily wages employee' in the year 1998.

His services were terminated on 14/02/2000 and, thereafter, he has not been granted any benefit, he has filed this writ petition.

Inter alia contending that claim of the petitioner has to be considered in accordance with the circular dated 21/01/04, he is entitled to be reinstated in service, he has not been reinstated and other similarly situated persons have been reinstated.

From the records, it is clear that petitioner has worked only for a period of 2 years from 1998 to 2000 and he claims benefit in accordance with the circular dated 21/01/04.

This Court had already held in various cases, that in view of the Constitution Bench judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and others versus Uma Devi and otheRs.2006 (4) SCC 1 , no direction for reinstatement of a person can be granted and as per the circular dated 21/01/04 issued by the State Govt.

and the said circular stands superseded by virtue of the aforesaid judgment and cannot be enforced not in view of the law laid down in the case of Uma Devi (supra) and the subsequent circular issued by the Govt.

That being so, not no mandamus can be issued for grant of benefit as per the circular dated 21/01/04.

That apart, if retrenchment compensation and other benefits has not been granted to the petitioner, he shall be at liberty to take 2 the benefit by representing it to the department or raising an Industrial Dispute.

not after a period of 12 years of his termination, interference into the matter by this Court is not called for.

Accordingly, finding no ground to interfere into the matter, the petition is dismissed.

(Rajendra Menon) Judge Vy/-

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial