GOVIND PRASAD MARSKOLE Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IT is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the controversy involved in the petition is squarely covered by a decision rendered by this Court in the case of Gopal Chawla and others Vs. State of M.P. And others [ : 2012 (2) MPLJ 605], wherein only this much was directed that the respondents were directed to examine the requirement of refixation of honorarium in the present days of price hike. It is contended that a writ petition was earlier filed by the said person which was decided and subsequently the order passed passed in the said writ petition was affirmed by the Division Bench of this Court at Gwalior. In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court as also in view of the law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court, though the writ petition filed by Gopal Chawla and others (supra) subsequently was decided, but a direction was given in the following manner: -

(2.) CONSIDERING the aforesaid, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to look into the rate of honorarium payable to the petitioners in terms of the directions issued by this Court in the case of Gopal Singh Chawla (supra) within a period of four months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order passed today. Certified copy as per rules.