Madhya Pradesh High Court
WP/1999/2024 of DEEPAK KATARE 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 GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND PATHAKON THE 2[nd] OF FEBRUARY, 2024
WRIT PETITION No. 1999 of 2024
BETWEEN:-
DEEPAK KATARE S/O SHRI VIJAY KATARE, AGEDABOUT 37 YEARS, OCCUPATION: SERVICE NAKACHANDRA VADANI IN FRONT OF YADAV COLONYDISTRICT GWALIOR (MADHYA PRADESH)
(BY SHRI AYUSH KUSHWAHA - ADVOCATE)
.....PETITIONER
AND
1.THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGHPRINCIPAL SECRETARY URBAN DEVELOPMENTAND ENVIRONMENT DEPARTMENTMANTRALAYA, VALLABH BHAWAN, BHOPAL(MADHYA PRADESH)
2.COMMISSIONER THE MUNICIPALCORPORATION, GWALIOR GWALIOR (MADHYAPRADESH)
MUNICIPAL
(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 . Learned counsel for the petitioner made an oral prayer regarding amendment in cause title of the petition.
2. On due consideration, prayer is allowed.
3. Let necessary correction be carried out across the Board.
4. After correction being carried out, matter is heard on admission.
5. The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution has been preferred by the petitioner seeking following reliefs:- "(i) That, the respondents be commanded to takecognizance over his representation Annexure - P/1 witha further to allow t perform the duties over the post inquestion with a further to pass an appropriate order inaccordance with law.
(ii) That, any other relief which is suitable in the factsand circumstances of the case in favour of thepetitioner including the cost throughout; may kindly begranted."
6. Learned Government Advocate for the State opposed the prayer on the ground that initial two years between 2014-2016 apparently, petitionerremained as daily wager.
7 . At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner fairly informed thisCourt that after 2016 petitioner has never been assigned any work by theMunicipal Corporation, Gwalior.
8. When a person is not assigned any work since 2016 then petitioner has the occasion to pursue his other remedies in accordance with law and underextraordinary / discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution,no such order for consideration of representation can be passed. Petitioner hasto pursue other remedy as per law.
9. Accordingly, petition stands disposed of in above terms.
Rashid
(ANAND PATHAK)JUDGE