Madhya Pradesh High Court
WP/2473/2024 of BANWARI LAL SHARMA Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH on 5 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 MILIND RAMESH PHADKEON THE 5[th] OF FEBRUARY, 2024
WRIT PETITION No. 2473 of 2024
BETWEEN:-
BANWARI LAL SHARMA S/O LATE SHRI MOOL CHANDSHARMA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, OCCUPATION:SERVICE BAHANGI KHURD THANA UTILA GWALIORDISTRICT GWALIOR (MADHYA PRADESH)
(BY SHRI SANJEEV GOYAL - ADVOCATE )
.....PETITIONER
AND
1.THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGHPRINCIPAL SECRETARY, SHIKSHA VIBHAG,VALLABH BHAWAN BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, SHIKSHA VIBHAG,VALLABH BHAWAN BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
2.THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH, THR.PRINCIPAL SECRETARY VALLABH BHAWANBHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)PRINCIPAL SECRETARY VALLABH BHAWANBHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
3.THE STATE OF M.P. THR.PRINCIPAL SECRETARYPANCHAYAT AND RURAL DEVELOPMENTDEPARTM ENT VALLABH BHAWAN BHOPAL(MADHYA PRADESH)PANCHAYAT AND RURAL DEVELOPMENTDEPARTM ENT VALLABH BHAWAN BHOPAL(MADHYA PRADESH)
4.MUKHYA KARYAPALAN ADHIKARI JILAPANCHAYAT GWALIOR, GWALIOR (MADHYAPRADESH)PANCHAYAT GWALIOR, GWALIOR (MADHYAPRADESH)
5.VIKAS KHAND ADHIKARI MURAR, GWALIOR(MADHYA PRADESH)(MADHYA PRADESH)
(BY SHRI K.S. TOMAR-GOVT. 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
The present petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, hasbeen filed by the petitioner against the in-action on the part of the respondentsin not giving the sixth pay commission to the petitioner from 1.1.2006.
2 . Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in respect of thegrievance of the petitioner, he has preferred a series of representation fromAnnexure P/3 to P/7 but but the same have not been considered till date by therespondents. A limited prayer has been made by counsel for the petitioner thatif the respondents/authorities are directed to decide the pending representation in accordance with law in a time bound manner, his grievance would beredressed.
3. Per contra, learned Additional Advocate General appearing onadvance copy on behalf of respondents/State submits that if such directions areissued, he has no objection.
4. Looking to the limited prayer made by the counsel for the petitioner which is not opposed by the counsel for the respondents/State, this petition isdisposed of with a direction to the respondent/Competent Authority to decidethe representation of the petitioner (Annexure P/3) by passing a reasoned andspeaking order within a period of two months from the date of receipt of thecertified copy of this order in accordance with law. However, it is made clearthat this Court has not gone into the merits of the case.
5. With the aforesaid directions, the petition is disposed off.
E-copy/certified copy as per rules.
(MILIND RAMESH PHADKE)JUDGE