DIGAMBER RANE Vs. TRIBAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petition is heard finally with consent of the counsel for the parties.

(2.) THE petitioner was initially appointed as Peon on 2.9.1989 and in terms of the Circular dated 17.03.1978. On the basis of the recommendations of the departmental committee on completion of five years in the contingency service, the petitioner was regularized on the post by order dated 14.05.1996 alongwith other similarly situated employees and was granted the Pay Scale of Rs.750 -945. Thereafter the order dated 8.10.2004 (Annexure P -3) was passed cancelling the order of regularization which was challenged by some of the employees before the High Court in W.P. No. 1512 of 2004 (Baliram Baghel vs. The State of M.P. & others and connected writ petitions). This Court vide order dated 14.09.2005 had allowed the writ petition and quashed the impugned order dated 8.10.2004 on the ground that it was passed without affording any opportunity of hearing. The said order of the learned Single Judge was challenged before the Division Bench and the writ appeal was dismissed and thereafter the SLP was also dismissed by the Supreme Court. The petitioner had also challenged the order dated 8.10.2004 by filing W.P. No. 7864 of 2012 (S), which was allowed by order dated 26.4.2013 by quashing the order dated 8.10.2004. In the meanwhile, the petitioner was given a show cause notice and afforded an opportunity of hearing and thereafter, fresh adverse order dated 17.12.2008 was passed against him, therefore, this Court vide order dated 26.4.2013 had given liberty to the petitioner to challenge the order which was passed in the meanwhile and further direction was issued that the petitioner would be entitled for the benefits accrued to him from the order dated 14.05.1996 till the date when the respondents had taken the fresh decision. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging fresh order dated 17.12.2008 which has been passed by the respondents denying the claim of the petitioner on the basis of the subsequent circular.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the respondents has not disputed the aforesaid submission that the present matter is identical to that of Suresh Chand Hirve (supra) which has already been decided by this Court.