Madhya Pradesh High Court
WP/1361/2024 of NANDRAM SHARMA Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH on 1 February 2024
COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESHAT JABALPURBEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWALON THE 1[st] OF FEBRUARY, 2024
WRIT PETITION No. 1361 of 2024
BETWEEN:-
NANDRAM SHARMA S/O LATE SHRI MOOLCHANDSHARMA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, PRESENTLY POSTEDIN THE OFFICE OF EXECUTIVE ENGINEER NARMADAVIKAS SAMBHAG NO. 09 MAIHAR DISTRICT SATNA(MADHYA PRADESH)
(BY SHRI KISHORI LAL PANDEY - ADVOCATE)
.....PETITIONER
AND
1.THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGHTHE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY WATER RESOURCESDEPARTMENT MANTRALAYA, VALLABHBHAWAN, BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY WATER RESOURCESDEPARTMENT MANTRALAYA, VALLABHBHAWAN, BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
2.THE ENGINEER IN CHIEF, BARGI HILLSJ A B A L P U R , TILWARA ROAD, JABALPURDISTRICT JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)J A B A L P U R , TILWARA ROAD, JABALPURDISTRICT JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
3.THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER NARMADA GHATIDIVISION SATNA NO 7 SATNA DISTRICT SATNA(MADHYA PRADESH)DIVISION SATNA NO 7 SATNA DISTRICT SATNA(MADHYA PRADESH)
4.THE SUPERINTENDENT ENGINEER UPPERNARMADA VALLEY DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITYSATNA DISTRICT SATNA (MADHYA PRADESH)NARMADA VALLEY DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITYSATNA DISTRICT SATNA (MADHYA PRADESH)
5.THE SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER RAI AWANTI BAISUB DIVISION NO 07 BARGI NAGAR JABALPURDISTRICT JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)SUB DIVISION NO 07 BARGI NAGAR JABALPURDISTRICT JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI SHIV KUMAR SHRIVASTAVA - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)
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
1
Decisions referred to
In this index
1
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
Petitioner's contention is that petitioner is working as a 'Shramik'. He hasbeen claiming benefit of extension of V[th] and VI[th] pay commission pay scales. However, it is evident from the record that petitioner was never classified as apermanent employee so to claim benefit of V[th] and VI[th] pay commissionrecommendations in accordance with the law laid down by the Supreme Courtin the case of Ram Naresh Rawat Vs. Ashwini Ray and others (2017) 3SCC 436.
It appears that petitioner has been given some benefit of GAD circulardated 7/10/2016 and it is not an order of permanent classification under theM.P. Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Rules, 1963.
Accordingly, this petition can be disposed of that in case, petitioner filesa fresh representation before the competent authority of the respondents withinfifteen days from today, the said authority shall consider and decide therepresentation of the petitioner within a further period of sixty days through aspeaking order under communication to the petitioner.
In above terms, the petition is disposed of.
This court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.
vy
(VIVEK AGARWAL)JUDGE