Madhya Pradesh High Court
WP/1892/2024 of DHIRENDRA NATH SINGH RATHORE Vs M.D. MADHYA PRADESH MADHYA KSHETRA VIDYUT VITRAN CO LTD. on 2 February 2024
COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESHAT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND PATHAKON THE 2[nd] OF FEBRUARY, 2024
WRIT PETITION No. 1892 of 2024
BETWEEN:-
DHIRENDRA NATH SINGH RATHORE S/O SHRI LOKNATH SINGH RATHORE, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,OCCUPATION: RETIRED 113A ADARSH PURAM BEHINDD.D. NAGAR GWALIOR (MADHYA PRADESH)
(BY SHRI AKSHAT JAIN - ADVOCATE)
.....PETITIONER
AND
1.M.D. MADHYA PRADESH MADHYA KSHETRAVIDYUT VITRAN CO LTD. NISTHA PARISHARBHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)VIDYUT VITRAN CO LTD. NISTHA PARISHARBHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
2.CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER MADHYA PRADESHMADHYA KCHETRA VIDUYAT VITRAN CO LTD.MOTI JHEEL GWALIOR (MADHYA PRADESH)MADHYA KCHETRA VIDUYAT VITRAN CO LTD.MOTI JHEEL GWALIOR (MADHYA PRADESH)
3.DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER MADHYA PRADESHMADHYA KCHETRA VIDUYAT VITRAN CO LTD.SHIVPURI (MADHYA PRADESH)MADHYA KCHETRA VIDUYAT VITRAN CO LTD.SHIVPURI (MADHYA PRADESH)
(NONE PRESENT)
.....RESPONDENTS
This petition coming on for admission this day, the court passed the following:
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
1. The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution has been preferred by the petitioner seeking following reliefs:- "1. Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to consider the representationannexure P/4 filed by the petitioner in a time bound manner.
2. Direct the respondents to pay the complete salaryand emoluments for the period of suspension, asstipulated in order dt. 28.11.2023 vide annexure P/1with interest.
3. Pass any order which this Hon'ble Court deems fitin the facts and circumstances of the case.
4. Allow the cost of the petition."
2. It is the grievance of the petitioner that he is retired from the post of Junior Engineer in the MPMKVV Company. In year 2007 he was placed undersuspension and his suspension period has been reconciled and decided videorder dated 28.11.2023 but incidentally prior to it 31.01.2023 he stood retired.His case regarding period of suspension was decided almost after 16 years.Now benefits are to be awarded in pursuance thereof, but same has not beenawarded, therefore, this petition has been filed.
3 . From the perusal of facts and circumstances and reliefs sought, itappears that if petitioner's case has been decided in which suspension periodhas been treated to be service period then it is to be reconciled and benefits areto be awarded as per law and looking to the long period exhausted in coming tothe conclusion about the period of suspension, it is imperative that respondentsshould rise to the occasion and decide the case of petitioner at an expeditiousnote preferably within one month from the date of submission of representationalongwith certified copy of this order in accordance with law.
4. With the aforesaid, the present petition stands disposed of.
(ANAND PATHAK)JUDGE