Madhya Pradesh High Court
WP/1911/2024 of PADAM CHAND GUPTA Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH on 2 February 2024
COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESHAT GWALIORBEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND PATHAKON THE 2[nd] OF FEBRUARY, 2024
WRIT PETITION No. 1911 of 2024
BETWEEN:-
PADAM CHAND GUPTA S/O SHRI LAXMI NARAYANGUPTA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, OCCUPATION:SERVICE SUBHASH HIGHER SECONDARY JAURAMORENA (MADHYA PRADESH)
(BY SHRI UPENDRA YADAV - ADVOCATE)
.....PETITIONER
AND
(BY SHRI M.S. JADOUN - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)
.....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:- "i. The respondent authority be directed to release the salary of petitioner w.e.f. from 2002 to 2023 and / or;
ii. The respondent authority may be directed to decide the representation Annexure P/7 before the authority ina time bound manner;."
2 . I t is the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is working in the Government Subhash Higher Secondary School,Jaura, District Morena (respondent No.5 herein) since 1996 as Accountant. Inyear 2002 the said school which was earlier a private school was came undergovernment-fold. Therefore, since then, as per the submission of counsel forthe petitioner, the petitioner is an employee of State Government. However;plight of petitioner is that he did not receive a single penny since year 2002. Inother words, from last 22 years petitioner is working without any salary.Therefore, petitioner seeks disbursement of his salary.
3. Learned Government Advocate for the respondents/State opposed the prayer and submitted that it is beyond imagination that from last 22 years, nosteps have been taken by the petitioner for redressal of his grievances.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the documentsappended thereto.
5. Facts appear to be peculiar and it prima facie indicates that it is verysurprising that petitioner served the institution for last 22 years and neverreceived salary. At the one hand, it appears that petitioner was casual and on theother hand, it further indicates that without remuneration he worked which needsto be addressed if not addressed yet.
6 . Therefore, respondents are the directed to consider the case of petitioner as per the factual details delineated by the petitioner and thereafter,passed appropriate order in accordance with law. While considering the case ofpetitioner all relevant considerations in this regard be ensured and thereafter,passed appropriate order. Exercise be completed within two months from thedate of submission of fresh representation alongwith certified copy of thisorder.
7. With the aforesaid, the present petition stands disposed of.
Rashid
(ANAND PATHAK)JUDGE