Full Judgment
1 W.A.No.46/2011 Balram Narware & others State of M.P.& others 7.5.2013 Shri S.U.Baig, Counsel for appellants.
Shri Piyush Dharmadhikari, GA for respondents.
I.A.No.468/2011 for condonation of delay There is delay in filing this appeal.
For the reasons stated in the application supported by an affidavit, the delay in filing this appeal is condoned.
Heard with the consent of the parties, finally.
This appeal is directed against an order dated 5.5.2010 passed by the writ Court in W.P.No.5688/2010 by which the writ petition was allowed in following terms:- In view of the law laid down in the case of Hukum Singh versus State of M.P.& otheRs.2009(1) MPJR, SN 5.I.A.No.5187/2010 is allowed.
Petitioners are permitted to file this petition by paying one set of Court-fee.
The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the point involved in this petition has already been put to rest by the Tribunal long back in Madhukant Yadu versus State of Madhya Pradesh, in O.A.No.2745/1989, decided on 24.8.1992.
Said decision was assailed by the State Government by preferring an SLP before the Apex Court, which was registered as SLP No.6892/1993 and the same has been dismissed on 3.1.1999.
Later on, the Principal Seat as well as the Benches at Gwalior and Indore have decided hundreds of petitions in the light of the said decision and, therefore, there is no reason why petitioners can be deprived of the benefit, which was extended in the case of Madhukant Yadu to similarly situated other co-employees.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has referred some more decisions of this Court and also a Division Bench decision in the case of State of MP and others versus Beni Singh Rathod, W.P.No.648/02, decided on 1.5.02, which is also applicable in this petition.
At this juncture, I may profitably refer to the Single Bench decision of this Court in the case of Rajendra Kumar Pandey and five others versus State of MP and otheRs.in W.P.No.8928/03 decided on 2 W.A.No.46/2011 Balram Narware & others State of M.P.& others 7.5.2013 21.4.2004, wherein the decision of Madhukant Yadu which was affirmed by the Supreme Court, was followed and all the objections which were raised by the respondents were not accepted.
In view of the above and the judgment delivered in the case of Archana Namdeo versus State of MP and otheRs.in W.P.No.5633/07(s).decided on 3.10.2007, this petition is allowed.
The respondents are directed to extend the benefit of regular scale of pay granting the benefit of notional pay fixation since initial date of appointment of the petitioners within a period of three months from the date of communication of this order.
However, if on examination respondents find that for any reason whatsoever, the benefit cannot be extended, they shall record such reasons and communicate it to the petitioneRs.Accordingly, this petition is allowed.
No order as to costs.”
Learned counsel for appellants submitted that the writ petition was allowed but in part.
In the last part of the order, the writ Court has directed that “ if on examination respondents find that for any reason whatsoever, the benefit cannot be extended, they shall record such reasons and communicate it to the petitioners”.Aforesaid rider will affect the decision of the respondents as they have been granted liberty to pass a reasoned order.
It is submitted that after decision in the present case, so many matters have been decided by the writ Court granting the relief to the petitioneRs.It is submitted that this appeal may be admitted and the aforesaid direction of the writ Court may be deleted.
Shri Dharmadhikari, learned counsel for State submitted that if the case of the appellants is to be turned down then a reasoned order is to be required.
In that circumstances, the appellants are always free to assail it before appropriate forum.
3 W.A.No.46/2011 Balram Narware & others State of M.P.& others 7.5.2013 We have considered the rival contentions of the parties and find that the case of the appellants was decided on the basis of the judgment passed in Madhukant Yadu versus State of M.P.and thereafter in State of M.P.and other versus Beni Singh Rathod, W.P.No.648/02 decided on 1.5.2002.
However, the learned Single Judge granted liberty to the respondents to pass a reasoned order, in case such benefit cannot be extended to the appellants.
Aforesaid direction of the writ Court appears to be just and proper and has been taken to care of the situation that in case the officer finds that the appellants are not entitled for the benefit which has been extended in the judgment referred in the order, then he has to pass a reasoned order.
We find that aforesaid direction is just and proper and needs no interference by this Court.
However, we made it clear that in case appellants or any of them remains aggrieved by the decision of the respondents, he may assail the final order before an appropriate forum in accordance with law.
With the aforesaid clarification, this appeal is finally disposed of, with no order as to costs.
(Krishn Kumar Lahoti) (Subhash Kakade ) Acting Chief Justice Judge C.