Full Judgment
W.P.No.12518/2012 27.08.2012 Lawyers are abstaining the work.
Record perused.
The claim made by the petitioner in the present petition is that he has worked for a substantial time, but wages for the period of working were not paid to him.
It is contended that in similar circumstances, some of the petitioners such as Arjun Prasad Mishra and others have approached this Court by way of filing Writ Petition No.13447 of 2006(S).which was decided vide order dated 27.9.2006.
The order passed in the said writ petition was challenged in a Writ Appeal by the State Government before the Division Bench of this Court, being W.A.No.314/2007.
The said Writ Appeal was heard along with other matters and in the case of Raj Rakhan Sukel & others versus State of M.P.& otheRs.W.P.No.8877/2006(S).a decision was rendered which was made applicable to all the cases.
While holding that the order was rightly passed by the learned single Judge, it was directed that the matter be considered and if the persons have worked, they be paid the wages for the period of working.
This view was further expressed by this Court in W.P.No.9479/2006(S).Ashok Kumar Yogi versus State of M.P.& otheRs.decided on 23.8.2006.
not the grievance of the petitioner is that despite bringing these orders into the notice of the authorities, though the petitioner is similarly placed person, he has not been granted the very same benefit.
Considering the aforesaid, without entering into the merits of the writ petition, the same is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider the claim of petitioner and if it is found that he is identically placed to that of the case of Raj Rakhan Sukel (supra).the similar treatment be extended to the petitioner within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order passed today.
With the aforesaid direction, the writ petition stands disposed of.
(K.K.Trivedi) Judge.
A.Praj.