Bholu Singh Tomar Vs. Sanjay Singh - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1040375
CourtMadhya Pradesh High Court
Decided OnMar-19-2013
AppellantBholu Singh Tomar
RespondentSanjay Singh
Excerpt:
conc. no. 1584 of  2012 19.3.2013 shri narendra sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner. shri prashant singh, learned counsel for respondents. heard. after 8 years of disposal of a petition, w.p. no. 9035/2004)  (disposed of on 29.9.2004), the petitioner has filed this petition  seeking action against respondents for non­compliance of said  order.     no   cogent   explanation   has   been   given   as   to   why   no  action   was   initiated   by   the   petitioner   for   alleged   non­ compliance.     the   latches,   in   the   given   facts   of   present   case,  would be a sufficient ground to dismiss the petition and drop  the proceedings.   however,  in  pursuance   to   notice   issued   to   respondents  they   have   filed   a   compliance   report   stating   therein   that   a  detailed   speaking   order   has   been   passed   on   30.11.2012;  whereby, claim of the petitioner for grant of regular pay scale  from   initial   date   of   appointment   as   per   as   per   decision   in  madhukant   yadu   v.   state   of   m.p.  and   others   (o.a.  no.  2745/1989) has been rejected.   since the claim of the petitioner has been considered as  per direction  dated  29.9.2004,  no  case  of willful  disobedience  has   been   made   out   as   would   warrant   any   action   against   the  respondents.  petitioner, if he is not satisfied with the order, is at  liberty   to   initiate   appropriate   proceedings   against   the   same  before appropriate forum. for  the present  since  no   case of  willful  disobedience  is  made out the proceedings are dropped.  rule nisi discharged.  (sanjay yadav) judge vivek tripathi
Judgment:

Conc. No. 1584 Of  2012 19.3.2013 Shri Narendra Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner.

Shri Prashant Singh, learned counsel for respondents.

Heard.

After 8 years of disposal of a petition, W.P. No. 9035/2004)  (disposed of on 29.9.2004), the petitioner has filed this petition  seeking action against respondents for non­compliance of said  order.

    No   cogent   explanation   has   been   given   as   to   why   no  action   was   initiated   by   the   petitioner   for   alleged   non­ compliance.

    The   latches,   in   the   given   facts   of   present   case,  would be a sufficient ground to dismiss the petition and drop  the proceedings.   However,  in  pursuance   to   notice   issued   to   respondents  they   have   filed   a   compliance   report   stating   therein   that   a  detailed   speaking   order   has   been   passed   on   30.11.2012;  whereby, claim of the petitioner for grant of regular pay scale  from   initial   date   of   appointment   as   per   as   per   decision   in  Madhukant   Yadu   v.

  State   of   M.P.  and   others   (O.A.  No.  2745/1989) has been rejected.   Since the claim of the petitioner has been considered as  per direction  dated  29.9.2004,  no  case  of willful  disobedience  has   been   made   out   as   would   warrant   any   action   against   the  respondents.  Petitioner, if he is not satisfied with the order, is at  liberty   to   initiate   appropriate   proceedings   against   the   same  before appropriate forum.

For  the present  since  no   case of  willful  disobedience  is  made out the proceedings are dropped.  Rule NISI discharged.

 (SANJAY YADAV) JUDGE Vivek Tripathi