IN IHE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PJADnSH AT JABALPU MISCo'PETITION NO. agi/i OF 1993‘ ‘Vw/ 1° Devendra alngh u/o Shrl Prem Slngh, . . . PETirgomaR‘s. ‘aged about 27 years, resldent of C—13, Pen51on Bada, Ralpur (MP). Hlmmatpal Gupta S/c Shrl G S Gupta, Junior Engineer, , M P¢A K v N, 18, Choubey Colony, Ralpur. gig Gapal Rao Patnayak S/o ahrl R K. ?atna1k, Junlor Lnglneer, MOP A K.V N., 18, Choube Colony, Raip‘ur (MP . 4. Sandeep Pandey s/o Shri Junicr Engineer, Mop.£A°K°v.N., sirgitti, Bilaspur.(MP). aharda Unadhyay b/o bhrlxg L° padhyay, M.p.A 1y lst, K°V.N., 18, Lhoégey tolony, Raipur (MP). bantosh Kwm Dubey $/o ehrl C L Dubey, Typ1§t, M PQA K.V N., 18, Choupey Colony, Ralpur (Iv?) o Ishwar Pd. Sharma 5/0 Shrl $ P:‘$harma, M P.A K V.N T8, Choubey Colony, Typlst, ‘ Ralpur (MP) Prem Slngh Thakur a Clerk, M.P A K V N, 18, Choubey bolony, Ralpur (MP) I? , Kg ““ Suresh Kumar Yadav S/o 5hr1 J L. Yadav, aurveyor, M.P A K V N., 18 Choubey Colony, Ra1pur (MP) 10. Hamesh Shukla S/o SoK , § m an KAI N” Sirgitti,‘ hukla, Meter Reader, Bllaspur (k§). Jagdlsh ?rascd Yaaav, Helper, Ma? A K V N., Slrglttl, Bllaspur (HP). Makenésm §m7L 'Thcekws x dig w C$Thm§¢m t1 Uhmum kwyw n am mam UP ya; i “ ‘ pawsx/ x§ ckfi§§y &LW“MA C; w (v ’ , ' — Versus — RESPONDENTS M.P. Audyogik Kendra Vikas Nigam, through its Managing Director, 99, Samata Colony, Raipur (MP). Dr. P L. Sharma, Proprletor Sharma aécurlty berv1ces, Head Offlce, 264, GeetanJall Nagar, Sector—l1, hhanker Nagat, Ralpux (MP) PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITTION OE INDIA FOR iaSUING AM WRIT 1N THE’VATURc 0t CERIIORARI, MANDMUS ETC°ETC. AND ALSO FOR I5$UING ‘NELESSARY DIRECTIONS U XI—HC-22 1510512004: - Miss Sharmila Singhai, counsel for the petitioners. Shri Ranbir Singh, counsal far (espondent No.1. Heard. The petitioners have med? this petition under Article 2261227 of the Constitution of India seeking diréction against respondent No.1 te pay the reguiar pay scale and other benefits which are fixed and prescribed for a regular empioyeeof the Departm ent and fer arrears. Vide order dated 27/02fii§93 the Court passed an interim order - which reads thus: “in the meanwhile, if the petitianers are working e en daily basis, the r services be continued until further orders." On 011101199? the pegitioners had moved anapplication for s in issuance of a direction to re dent No.1 to consider the case of'the. services. The Court vide order dated 01/10/1997 directed the res ondents to consider the case of the, petitioners for regularization of tf eir services. Thereafter respondent No.1 r a vide order dated 10/042003 rjgularized the sen/ices of the petitioners w.e.f. 10/04/2003. it is su mitted that inspite of the order dated ‘ [stew on i petitioners for regularization XI-HC—22 10I04/2003 the petitioners are not getting the {egular pay Scale of a regular empicye‘e as prescribed in \the ’order dated 10.04.2003. Thereafter; the petitioners had! made a representatien on 24.0a2003 before the Additional Managing’Director. Upon the repreeentation made a ! Managing Director has marked that advance pay may be given to ithe petitionere eubject to approvai of the competent Authority or on secrity rates pending for finalization of their case. it is further submitted that after the passing the said order of reguiarization, on 27.03200“ General Manager issued a notice Getting ; upon the petitioners to pay the "amount, which has been deposited in the persona! account of the pettioners, otherwise the same would b deducted from their saiaries As the servrces of the ptitioners namely, petitioner No 1 Devendra v Singh petitioner No2 Himmtpal Gupta petitioner No3 Gopal Rao Patnaik; petitioner No.7 lshwa; Prasad Sharma, petitioner No.9 Suresh Kumar Yadav; petitioner No.13 Jagdish Prasad Yadav; and petitioner No.12 Mahendra Singh Thakave been reularized w.e.f. 10.04.2003, u‘h the relief of reguiarization has een granted During the pendency of the petition two of the petitioners Vamely, petitioner No 5 Sharda Upadhyay by the petitioners the Additij e from the date of making the repr entation. Ordered accordingly. ‘1 Stilt i; X1-HC-22 17 W ' . . v ww‘m ”Em 1 . ............. § .................. ’ ‘ 241%“? ‘ ¥ mam _{>_jmi$nf%3 ' msmqf‘a ‘ mm f3€rm www‘ ‘ w‘i- Pandey; petitianer No.8 Pram Sir gh Thakur; and petitioner No.10‘Rame3h Shukia had left the jeb. Having considered the and circumstances of the case and material on record, in the opinio V of this Court, the ends of justice would be served if a direction is givel to respondent No.1 to fovthwith grant regular pay scale to the petitione s and to pay the arrears thereof, as early as possible preferably within a p' riod of three months from today. So far as petitioners 5 & 6, who died uring the pendency of the petition, are concerned their heirs may ake a detailed representation to the competent authority for pay ent of dues, if any, and on such ‘E representation being madethe mpetent authority shall decide the same within a period of six months fr m the date of making the representation. . So far as petitioners 4, 8 & 10. ho had left the job, are concerned, they J l may also make a detailed repr isentation to the competentauthority for payment of dues, if any, and in such representation being made the competent authority shalt decid the same within a period of six monthS//