SATISH GUPTA Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner before this Court has filed the present petition claiming the benefit of Krammonati.

(2.) THE contention of the petitioner is that he was appointed as daily wager and later on his case was considered by the Scrutiny Committee and he was appointed as work charged contingency paid employee keeping in view the Madhya Pradesh (Work Charged and Contingency Paid Employees) Services Rules, 1960. Learned counsel for the petitioner at the outset has prayed for issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents to decide the petitioners' representation for grant of Krammoanti in light of the judgment delivered in the case of Tejulal Yadav Vs. State of M.P., ILR (2009) MP 1326. It has also been stated that the aforesaid judgment delivered in the case of Tejulal Yadav (supra) has also been affirmed by the Division Bench of this Court at Principal Seat in WA No.966/2009, wherein the Division Bench has held as under: -''It is not in dispute that decision of K.L. Asre has been implemented and has not been assailed. Other persons have also been given benefit. Following reasons have been given in paragraph 5, 6 and 7 by learned Single Judge: -

(3.) LEARNED G.A. has fairly stated before this court that the representation of the petitioner shall certainly be considered in light of the judgment delivered by the learned Single Judge and by the Division Bench of this court.