TULA RAM Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is second visit of the petitioner to this Court by way of present writ petition. Earlier, petitioner filed an original application before the then existing M.P. State Administrative Tribunal. On abolishment of the Tribunal, the said matter was transferred to this Court and was re- registered as W.P.No. 2992/03.

(2.) The grievance of the petitioner in the said writ petition was that his juniors were regularized, but he has not been regularized. This Court decided the said matter on 10/08/2004. The relevant portion of the said matter reads as under:-

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in obedience of the order passed by this Court in W.P.No. 2992/03, the respondents were required to regularize the petitioner from the date, a person immediately junior to him was regularized. The Court directed for proforma fixation of pay in comparison to his juniors, which itself shows that the Court intended to grant him the benefit of retrospective regularization at par with his juniors. By criticizing the order Annexure-P/7, Shri Anil Sharma submits that by no stretch of imagination the intervening period can be treated as 'no work no pay'. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that there was a delay in implementing the order of this Court dated 10/08/2004 and therefore, petitioner cannot be deprived from the arrears of wages for the said period.