TULARAM VISHVAKARMA Vs. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners have filed this Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for appropriate direction to the respondents -authorities to extend them the benefit of time bound promotion, commonly known as Kramonnati and arrears of salary with all consequential benefits as per GAD circular dated 19.04.1999 and as per law laid down by this Court in the case of Tejulal Yadav Vs. State of M.P. & others, W.P. No. 11507/2007(s) decided on 23.01.2009 reported in ILR (2009) MP page 1326.

(2.) It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that the decision rendered in the case of Tejulal Yadav (supra) has been affirmed by Division Bench of this Court in W.A. No. 966/2009 (State of M.P. & others Vs. Tejulal Yadav) and the SLP(Civil)No. 14582/2012 filed by the State Government before the Apex Court has also been dismissed by the Apex Court on 27.09.2010. It is contended that in terms of the law laid -down by this Court in the case of Tejulal Yadav (supra), the petitioners are also entitled to grant of the same benefit within the time bound period. It is stated by learned Panel Lawyer appearing on advance notice on behalf of respondents that in case the claim of petitioners is based on the decision of Tejulal Yadav (supra), the authorities will examine the claim of the petitioners and would pass appropriate orders. Considering the aforesaid, this petition is finally disposed of with a direction to the respondents to examine and consider the claim of persons like petitioners in the light of the decision rendered by this Court in the case of Tejulal Yadav (supra) and in case it is found that the claim of petitioners is identical to the claim of aforesaid person, the same benefit be extended to the petitioners within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order passed today. Needless to say, it will be open to the respondents -authorities to pass appropriate orders in case it is found that petitioners are not similarly situated as in the case of Tejulal Yadav (supra). In such a case appropriate orders be passed on the representation of petitioners and the same be communicated to them within the aforesaid period. The petition is disposed of with the aforesaid.