Madhya Pradesh High Court
WP/20548/2019 of JAGDISH Vs STATE OF M.P. THROUGH URBAN ADMINISTRATION DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT on 2 February 2024
COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESHAT INDOREBEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRANAY VERMAON THE 2[nd] OF FEBRUARY, 2024
WRIT PETITION No. 20548 of 2019
BETWEEN:-
1.JAGDISH S/O SHRI KALU RAM, AGED ABOUT 55Y E A R S , OCCUPATION: SERVICE R/O.RAMINAGAR, UJJAIN (MADHYA PRADESH)Y E A R S , OCCUPATION: SERVICE R/O.RAMINAGAR, UJJAIN (MADHYA PRADESH)2.PAPPU S/O KASAM, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,OCCUPATION: SERVICE, R/O. 11, JUNASAMVARIYA UJJAIN (MADHYA PRADESH)OCCUPATION: SERVICE, R/O. 11, JUNASAMVARIYA UJJAIN (MADHYA PRADESH)3.DULICHAND S/O SHRI MANGILAL OCCUPATION:SERVICE, R/O. MULLAPURA UJJAIN (MADHYAPRADESH)SERVICE, R/O. MULLAPURA UJJAIN (MADHYAPRADESH)
4.KAILASH S/O DASHRATH OCCUPATION: SERVICER / O . TILKESHWAR COLONY RINGH ROAD,UJJAIN (MADHYA PRADESH)R / O . TILKESHWAR COLONY RINGH ROAD,UJJAIN (MADHYA PRADESH)
5.SANJAY SINGH PAWAR S/O SHRI LALLU SINGH,AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, OCCUPATION: SERVICE,R/O. 628 TIRUPATI DHAM EXT.KANIPURA ROAD,UJJAIN (MADHYA PRADESH)AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, OCCUPATION: SERVICE,R/O. 628 TIRUPATI DHAM EXT.KANIPURA ROAD,UJJAIN (MADHYA PRADESH)
6.BHUPENDRA SHRIVASTAV S/O SHRI RAMAKANTSHRIVASTAV, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,OCCUPATION: SERVICE, R/O. 118 DHABA ROAD,MUNSIRAJ KA DHABA UJJAIN (MADHYAPRADESH)SHRIVASTAV, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,OCCUPATION: SERVICE, R/O. 118 DHABA ROAD,MUNSIRAJ KA DHABA UJJAIN (MADHYAPRADESH)
(BY SHRI SANJAY JAMINDAR - ADVOCATE)
.....PETITIONERS
AND
1.STATE OF M.P. THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY URBAN ADMINISTRATION DEVELOPMENTDEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF M.P. VALLABHBHAWAN, BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SHAILESHMAHADEV SUKHDEVESigning time: 2/2/20246:24:12 PM
2.MUNICIPAL CORPORATION UJJAIN THROUGH
COMMISSIONER MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONUJJAIN (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI SHREY RAJ SAXENA - ADDL. ADVOCATE GENERAL FORSTATE)
This petition coming on for admission this day, the court passed the following:
1. Heard.
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
2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioners before this Courtclaiming for counting their past services w.e.f. 1988 as a daily wagers as aqualifying services for pensionary and other benefits and seniority w.e.f. 2003on the present past.
3. Learned counsel for both the parties submits that the issue involved inboth this is covered by the judgment passed by this Court in the case of(Sudama Prasad Pandey Vs. State of M.P. & Ors.) in W.P. No.16878/2010decided on 16/12/2010 as well as the judgment passed by the Apex Court in thecase of Netram Sahu Vs. State of Chhattisgarhin Civil Appeal No.1254/2018decided on 23/03/2018.
4. In view of the aforesaid, both the present petition stands disposed ofwith a direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioners in thelight of the judgment passed by this Court in the case of Sudama PrasadPandey(supra) as well as the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the caseof Netram Sahu(supra) for counting the past services of the petitioners (as adaily wagers) as a qualifying services. The said exercise be carried out within aSignature Not Verifiedperiod of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order. IfSigned by: SHAILESHMAHADEV SUKHDEVESigning time: 2/2/20246:24:12 PMthe case of the petitioners are squarely covered by the aforesaid judgments and they have been found eligible, then the same benefit be extended to thepetitioners.
5. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition stands disposed off.Certified copy as per rules SS/- (PRANAY VERMA)JUDGE
Signature Not Verified