Vaidynath Singh Baghel Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1054619
CourtMadhya Pradesh High Court
Decided OnSep-11-2013
AppellantVaidynath Singh Baghel
RespondentThe State of Madhya Pradesh
Excerpt:
w.p.no.15329/2013 (vaidynath singh baghel versus state of mp and others.11.09.2013 heard shri d.k.tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner and shri swapnil ganguly, learned p.l.for the state on the question of admission and interim relief. the learned counsel for the petitioner after arguing at length submits that as the authorities concerned are required to examine the case of the petitioner in the light of the decisions of this court rendered in the cases of onkar prasad tripathi and connected petitions w.p.no.290/2013(s) decided on 13.05.2013 and sudhir singh w.p.no.7121/10 decided on 12.10.2010 and examine each case for the purpose of determining as to whether the petitioner is physically fit and is not going to retire shortly and has not been previously exempted and therefore the petitioner be granted liberty to approach the authority concerned by filing a representation for re-consideration of impugned order of posting dated 22.08.2013 by which the petitioner has been posted at working plan unit, sagar. the learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that as the petitioner has already undergone posting in the working plan unit and therefore, his case deserves to be considered by the authority concerned. the learned panel lawyer for the state submits that the state require 55 more range officers for making the working plan unit effective and is also required to redraw the working plan unit in accordance with the t.n.godavarman thirumulkpad versus union of india and others [writ petition (civil) no.202 of 1995 decided on 12.12.1996].and in such circumstances, the impugned orders have been passed and the petitioner has already been relieved. he however submits that the case of the petitioner shall be examined by the authority concerned in case the petitioner files a representation. in view of the aforesaid, without entering into the merits of the case the petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of with a direction to the effect that in case the petitioner files a representation along with a copy of the order passed today and a copy of the petition before the authority concerned within 15 days from today, the authority concerned shall examine the case of the petitioner and take a decision thereon by passing a reasoned order after considering the decision of this court in the cases of onkar prasad tripathi as well as the transfer policy, in accordance with law, preferably within a period of one month thereafter. as the petitioner has already been relieved, it is further observed that the petitioner, if so advised, may also move an application for interim relief which shall be considered by the concerned authority at the earliest. with the aforesaid directions, the petition filed by the petitioner stands disposed of. c.c.as per rules. (r.s.jha) judge msp
Judgment:

W.P.No.15329/2013 (Vaidynath Singh Baghel versus State of MP and otheRs.11.09.2013 Heard Shri D.K.Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Swapnil Ganguly, learned P.L.for the State on the question of admission and interim relief.

The learned counsel for the petitioner after arguing at length submits that as the authorities concerned are required to examine the case of the petitioner in the light of the decisions of this court rendered in the cases of Onkar Prasad Tripathi and connected petitions W.P.No.290/2013(S) decided on 13.05.2013 and Sudhir Singh W.P.No.7121/10 decided on 12.10.2010 and examine each case for the purpose of determining as to whether the petitioner is physically fit and is not going to retire shortly and has not been previously exempted and therefore the petitioner be granted liberty to approach the authority concerned by filing a representation for re-consideration of impugned order of posting dated 22.08.2013 by which the petitioner has been posted at Working Plan Unit, Sagar.

The learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that as the petitioner has already undergone posting in the Working Plan Unit and therefore, his case deserves to be considered by the authority concerned.

The learned panel lawyer for the State submits that the State require 55 more Range Officers for making the Working Plan Unit effective and is also required to redraw the Working Plan Unit in accordance with the T.N.Godavarman Thirumulkpad versus Union of India and others [Writ Petition (Civil) No.202 of 1995 decided on 12.12.1996].and in such circumstances, the impugned orders have been passed and the petitioner has already been relieved.

He however submits that the case of the petitioner shall be examined by the authority concerned in case the petitioner files a representation.

In view of the aforesaid, without entering into the merits of the case the petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of with a direction to the effect that in case the petitioner files a representation along with a copy of the order passed today and a copy of the petition before the authority concerned within 15 days from today, the authority concerned shall examine the case of the petitioner and take a decision thereon by passing a reasoned order after considering the decision of this court in the cases of Onkar Prasad Tripathi as well as the transfer policy, in accordance with law, preferably within a period of one month thereafter.

As the petitioner has already been relieved, it is further observed that the petitioner, if so advised, may also move an application for interim relief which shall be considered by the concerned authority at the earliest.

With the aforesaid directions, the petition filed by the petitioner stands disposed of.

C.C.as per rules.

(R.S.Jha) Judge msp