Full Judgment
1 W.P.No.12009/2012 24/08/2012 Shri Arvind Shrivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner.
The controveRs.involved in the present case is squarely covered by the decision rendered by this Court in the case of Raj Rakhan Sukel & others versus State of M.P.& otheRs.W.P.No.8877/2006(s) decided on 10/08/2006.
This Court has categorically considered the claim and has directed payment of wages for the period persons have remained in service.
This view was further expressed by this Court in W.P.No.9479/2006, Ashok Kumar yogi versus The State of M.P & others decided on 23/08/2006.
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.
This being so, without entering into the merits of the writ petition, the same is disposed of with a direction to consider the representation of the petitioner in the light of the decisions rendered by 2 this Court in the case of Raj Rakhan Sukel & others & Ashok Kumar yogi (supra) and in case it is found that the petitioner is identically placed the very same benefit be extended to him also.
The necessary action be taken within two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order passed today.
Accordingly the petition is disposed of.
Certified copy as per rules.
(K.K.TRIVEDI) Judge s/- 3 W.P.No.8973/2011 24/08/2012 List in the next week along with W.P.No.12847/2010 before the Bench in which I (K.K.Trivedi,J.am not presiding.
(K.K.TRIVEDI) Judge s/- 4 5