07.07.2010.
Shri Ratnesh Mishra for the petitioners.
Shri Rajesh Tiwari, Govt. Advocate, for the respondents.
In view of the law laid down in the case of Hukum Singh
Vs. State of M.P. & Others, 2009(1) MPJR, SN 5, I.A.
No.7263/10 is allowed. Petitioners are permitted to file this petition
by paying one set of Court-fee.
The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is
that the point involved in this petition has already been put to rest
by the Tribunal long back in Madhukant Yadu Vs. State of
Madhya Pradesh, in O.A.No.2745/1989, decided on 24.8.1992.
Said decision was assailed by the State Government by preferring
an SLP before the Apex Court, which was registered as SLP
No.6892/1993 and the same has been dismissed on 3.1.1999. Later
on, the Principal Seat as well as the Benches at Gwalior and Indore
have decided hundreds of petitions in the light of the said decision
and, therefore, there is no reason why petitioners can be deprived of
the benefit, which was extended in the case of Madhukant Yadu
to similarly situated other co-employees.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has referred some more
decisions of this Court and also a Division Bench decision in the
case of State of MP and others Vs. Beni Singh Rathod,
W.P.No.648/02, decided on 1.5.02, which is also applicable in this
petition.
At this juncture, I may profitably refer to the Single Bench
decision of this Court in the case of Rajendra Kumar Pande and
five others Vs. State of MP and others, in W.P.No.8928/03,
2
decided on 21.4.2004, wherein the decision of Madhukant Yadu
which was affirmed by the Supreme Court, was followed and all
the objections which were raised by the respondents were not
accepted.
In view of the above and the judgment delivered in the case
of Archana Namdeo Vs. State of MP and others, in
W.P.No.5633/07(S), decided on 3.10.2007, this petition is allowed.
The respondents are directed to extend the benefit of regular scale
of pay granting the benefit of notional pay fixation since initial date
of appointment of the petitioners within a period of three months
from the date of communication of this order.
However, if on examination respondents find that for any
reason whatsoever, the benefit cannot be extended, they shall
record such reasons and communicate it to the petitioners.
Accordingly, this petition is allowed. No order as to costs.
Certified copy as per rules.
(RAJENDRA MENON)
JUDGE
Aks/-