F.No. 14/03/2006-SR(S)1 Vol.-IV Government of India Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions (Department of Personnel & Training) ***

Transcription

1 c- {o I F.No. 14/03/2006-SR(S)1 Vol.-IV Government of India Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions (Department of Personnel & Training) To. The Principal, Secretary, General Administration Department, / Government of Madhya Pradesh, Vallabh Bhawan, Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh *** 3 rd Floor, Lok Nayak Bhawan, Khan Market, New Delhi ,.. the 26 th October, 2012, / OCT 20'Q The Principal Secretary,. General Administration Department, Government of Chhattisgarh, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur, Chhattisgarh Sub.: - Minutes of the 21 sl Meeting of the Comm ittee held on 1sl October at 11:00 A.M. in Conference Room No Vallabh Bhawan. Madhya Pradesh under the Chairmanship of Shri Manoj Joshi. Joint Secretary (AT & A & SR). Sir, I am directed to refer to the above mentioned subject and to forward herewith a copy of the Minutes of the 21 st Meeting of the Committee held under the Chairmanship of Shri Manoj Joshi, Joint Secretary (AT & A & SR) on I" October, 2012 at 11:00 AM in Conference Room No. 315, Vallabh Bhawan, Madhya Pradesh regarding consideration of the representations of State Government employees in compliance with the directions given by the Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh and Chhattisgarh and other representations of employees under SC/ST category and spouse policy etc., for information and necessary action. Encls.: As mentioned above Yours Faithfully,, ~~ (M.S. Sharma) Under Secretary SR(S) 1iE' Copy to: The Principal Secretary: /1. D/o Water Resources, Bhopal (M.P.),~2 D/o Water Resources, Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 3. D/o Panchayat & RD, Bhopal (M.P.) 4. D/o Panchayat & RD, Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 5. D/o Horticulture & Food Processing, Bhopal (M.P.) 6. D/o Public Health Engineering, Bhopal (M.P.) 7. D/o Public Health Engineering, Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 8. D/o Home, Bhopal (M.P.) 9. D/o Home, Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 10. D/o Social Justice, Bhopal (M.P.) 11 D/o Social Justice, Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 12. D/o Commerce & Industry, Bhopal (M.P.) 13. D/o Commerce & Industry, Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 14. D/o Public Health, Bhopal (M.P.) 15. D/o Farmers' Welfare & Agriculture Development, Bhopal (M.P.).: 16. D/o Agricultur,e, Ralpur (Chhattisgarh) -"". ~frt"!:' --:~:---:iii::-'1:::wr::-. ~~::-:.,::lq=.-:~:;1 DIP!L. of Personnel & Trg L. N. BhaWan Copy also to: ~ ~ ~.:!JI~i'" ~.jpl &,&.Sued SGOtion, 1. PS to JS (AT & A & SR) 2. PS to DS (SR) 26rer2Ot2j ~ttssueb

2 MINUTES OF THE 21 st MEETING OF STATE ADVISORY COMMITTEE, MADHYA PRADESH HELD ON 01 ST OCTOBER, 2012 AT AM IN COMMITTEE ROOM NO. 315, VALLABH BHAWAN, BHOPAL, MADHYA PRADESH, UNDER THE CHAIRMANSHIP OF JS (AT&A) In compliance with the directions of the Hon'ble High Courts of Chhattisgarh and Madhya, Pradesh the 21 5t Meeting of the State Advisory Committee was held under the Chairmanship of Shri Manoj Joshi, Joint Secretary (AT & A), DOPT on 01110/2012at AM in Committee Room No. 315, Vallabh Bhawan, Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh to consider the representations of the petitioners and employees of State of Madhya Pradesh and Chhattisgarh. The list of attendants is enclosed at Annexure "A". 2. The Chairman welcomed the members of the Committee and thereafter took up the agenda of the meeting for discussion. The Committee considered 112 cases and decision of the Committee in each individual case has been reflected in the last column of the table. SI Name, Designation & No. W.P. No. 1 V K Mahajan, Sub- Engineer, WRD (WP No.4796/06) 2 Prafful Desawal, Sub- Engineer, WRD (WP No. 5729/06) 3 Om Prakash Tour, Sub- Engineer (WP No. 53l3/06) Present Status In compliance with the directions dated 15/ of was examined by his Administrative Department. On the recommendation of Administrative Department the representation of the petitioner was recommended for rejection by the Committee as all the grounds raised by him in his representation are not covered for his re-allocation under the existing guidelines of allocation. The petitioner will be communicated about the rejection of his representation by the issuing speaking order giving cogent reasons for all the grounds raised by him. The Committee noted that the petitioner inter-alia has raised the ground in his representation that he was allocated to Chhattisgarh in the pay scale of Rs l3500 where he got this scale on 20/09/2006 as he was under suspension. This fact was confirmed by his Administrative Department In the meeting. The Committee, therefore, decided to recommend his re-allocation from the State of Chhattisgarh to the State of M.P. in the pay scale of Rs as per his eligibility in the category of Al4. The main contention of the petitioners is that as they belong to SC and are domicile of Madhya Pradesh, they should be allocated to Madhya Pradesh. The Principal Secretary, WRD informed the Committee that the Chhattisgarh Government issued an order stating that the benefit of reservation to the dependent of SC/ST employees, for admission in the State Government institutions having domicile of M.P., allocated to Chhattisgarh is available if their castes are notified in both the successor States. As per their order dated 6 th July, 2004, caste certificate would be issued in Chhattisgarh in such cases and benefit of reservation would be

3 .-- t -l.- available to the employees as well as to their dependents. The Committee was informed that the petitioner in present case belongs to 'Jatav' Caste which is also notified in the State of Chhattisgarh and he himself and his dependents can't be denied the benefit of reservation in that State. The Committee was not convinced with the statement of Principal Secretary, WRD as benefit of the reservation is restricted to the areal domicile of the individual and this benefit can't be carried on with the migration from one state to another. The Administrative Department has refuted claims on other grounds of the petitioners for re-allocation of their services to State of M.P. by assigning valid reasons. The Committee decided to defer the consideration of following cases and recommended to seek clarification from the Reservation Division of DoPT in the matter. SrI. No. Name 3 - Om Prakash Tour, Sub-Engineer (W.P. No. 5313/06) 6 - Kamal Singh Sisodia, Asstt. Engineer (W.P. No. 2763/06) 8 - Satish Kumar Pandey (W.P. No. 2465/06) 17- Roop Basant Jarvade, Sub-Engineer (W.P. No.2420/08) 19- Trilok Chandra Sanwale, Sub-Engineer (W.P. No. 6444/06) 24 - L B Bamoria, Sub-Engineer (W.P. No. 336/06) 25 - Har Kishore Malviya, Asstt. Engineer (W.P. No. 7217/06) 55 - A. S. Parihar, Sub-Engineer(W.P. No. 61/06) 56 - S.K~ Rai, Sub-Engineer (W.P. No ) 60- Manoj Kumar Kalosiya, Sub-Engineer (W.P. No ) 62 - H P Malhotra, Sub-Engineer (W.P. No. 60/06) 99 - Vijay Kumar Mohase, Asstt. Engineer Gya Deen Kori, Sub-Engineer Prakash Chandra Sankala, Sub-Engineer 4 Alok Prasad Chaudhary, Sub Engineer, WRD (W.P. No. 5735/06) In compliance with the directions dated 15/ of was examined by his Administrative Department and they refuted his claim for re-allocation to State of M.P. by assigning cogent reasons to all the grounds raised by him in his representation. One of the contentions of the petitioners is that juniors have been allocated to Madhya Pradesh state. On the recommendation of Administrative Department the representation of the petitioner was recommended for rejection by the Committee as none of the grounds raised by him in his representation is covered for his reallocation under the existing guidelines of allocation. The petitioner will be communicated about the rejection of his representation by issuing a detailed speaking order. 5 Yogesh Kumar Sharma, Sub-Engr. WRD (6605/06) The Committee noted that the mother of the petitioner is suffering from liver cancer and he is eligible for allocation to the State of M.P. as per the existing guidelines. On the recommendation of his Administrative Department the Committee recommended the reallocation of the petitioner from the State of Chhattisgarh to the State of M.P. under medical hardship category as his dependent mother is covered as a family member as per the definition of family.

4 - '1.- 6 Kamal Singh Sisodiya, Assistant Engineer (W.P.2763/06) 7 Mahesh Chandra Vyas, Sub Engineer, WRD (WP No. 3106/06) 8 Satish Kumar Pandey, Sub Engineer, WRD (WP No.6425/06) 9 Shiv Shankar Gupta, Sub Engineer, WRD (WP No. 4145/06) 10 Shyam Sunderani, Sub- Engineer. WRD The main contention of the petitioner is that as he belong to SC and domicile of Madhya Pradesh, he should be allocated to Madhya Pradesh State. The consideration of this case was deferred as the issue regarding the accrual of benefits by the dependents of the SC/ST employees in Chhattisgarh and who are domicile of MP needs to be sorted out in the 1 st instance as explained at sr.no.3. The Administrative Department has refuted the claim of the petitioner on other grounds for re-allocation of his services to State of M.P. by assigning valid reasons. In compliance with the directions dated 15/11/2011 of was examined by his Administrative Department. They refuted his claim for re-allocation to State of M.P. by assigning cogent reasons to all the grounds raised by him in his representation. On the recommendation of Administrative Department the representation of the petitioner was recommended for rejection by the Committee, none of the grounds raised by him in his representation IS covered under the existing guidelines of allocation. The petitioner will be communicated about the rejection of his representation by the issuing a detailed speaking order. Main contention of the petitioner is that as he belongs to SC and domicile of MP, he should be allocated to MP. The consideration of this case was deferred as the issue regarding the accrual of benefits by the dependents of the SC/ST employees in Chhattisgarh and who are domicile of MP needs to be sorted out in the 1st instance. The Administrative Department has refuted the claim of the petitioner on other grounds for reallocation his services to State of M.P. by assigning proper reasons. In compliance with the directions dated 15111/2011 of was examined by his Administrative Department. One of the contentions of the petitioners is that juniors are allocated to MP. They refuted his claim for re-allocation to State of M.P. by assigning valid reasons to all the grounds raised by him in his representation. On the recommendation of Administrative Department the representation of the petitioner was recommended for rejection by the Committee as none of the grounds raised by him in his representation is covered under the existing guidelines of allocation. The petitioner will be communicated about the rejection of his representation by issuing a detailed speaking order. In compliance with the directions dated 14/12/2011 of

5 -4- (WPNo.8610/09) 11 Mohan Singh Nokan, Sub-Engineer, WRD ( WP No ) 12 Nath Das Gupta, Sub- Engineer, WRD (WA 396/11) 13 Bhupendra Kumar Kachota, Sub-Engineer. WRD (WP No.3122/05) 14 Ravindra Singh Parihar, Sub-Engineer, WRD, WA No. 413/11 was examined by his Administrative Department. The main contention of the petitioner is that his juniors were allocated to MP. They refuted his claim for re-allocation to State of M.P. by assigning valid reasons to all the grounds raised by him in his representation. On the recommendation of Administrative Department the representation of the petitioner was recommended for rejection by the Committee as none of the grounds raised by him in his representation is covered for his re-allocation under the existing guidelines of allocation. The petitioner will be communicated about the rejection of his representation by issuing a detailed speaking order. On the recommendation of the Principal Secretary of Administrative Department, who attended the meeting, the Committee decided to recommend his re-allocation from the State of Chhattisgarh to the State of M.P. on the ground that he suffered two heart attacks and is under treatment of Coronary Artery Disease (CAD) and triple vessel disease. The case is covered under Medical Hardship Policy. The Committee considered the representation made earlier by the. petitioner in the light of directions dated 13/03/2012 on the basis of comments furnished by the Administrative Department of the petitioner. The main contention of the petitioner is that his juniors were allocated to MP. They refuted his claim for re-allocation to State of M.P. by assigning valid reasons to all the grounds raised by'him in his representation. The grounds raised by the petitioner do not entitle the petitioner for allocation to the State of M.P. The Committee, therefore, decided to recommend his representation for rejection. The petitioner will be communicated about rejection of his representation by issuing a detailed speaking order. The Committee considered the representation made earlier by the petitioner in the light of directions dated 13/ on the basis of comments furnished by the Administrative Department of the petitioner. The main contention of the petitioner is that his juniors were allocated to MP. They refuted his claim for re-allocation to State of M.P. by assigning cogent reasons to all the grounds raised by him in his representation. The grounds raised by the petitioner do not entitle the petitioner for allocation to the State of M.P. The Committee therefore, decided to recommend his representation for rejection. The petitioner will be communicated about rejection of his representation by issuing a speaking order..on the request of Administrative Department the consideration of this case was deferred by the committee as the Judgement dated 13/08/2008 of Double Judges Bench in W.A. No. 783/07 in the matter of R S Chaurasia versus Union of India and others has bearing on this case because of allocation of juniors to M.P. in

6 -5- lower pay scale. 15 Arvind Chandel, Sub- Engineer, WRD (W.P. No. 6154/06) 16 R K Sanghvi, Sub- Engr.,WRD (W.P. No. 3413/08) 17 Roop Basant Jarvade, Sub Engineer, WRD (W.P. No ) 18 Nand Lal Rathore, Sub Engineer, WRD (WP No. 6458/06) 19 Trilok Singh Sawale, Sub-Engineer, WRD (W.P. No. 6444/06) On the recommendation of Administrative Department the representation of the petitioner for change of State cadre from Chhattisgarh to M.P. from the category Al3 viz. "domicile" to Al4 viz. "Junior most" was rejected because on the appointed day the service records were showing that petitioner was a domicile of Chhattisgarh though his request for change of domicile was registered in his Administrative office prior to the appointed day. The Administrative Department informed the Committee that his allegation of the petitioner that his juniors were allocated to MP. is not correct because the juniors named by him were allocated to M.P. under specific provisions under policy viz. Mutual transfers, spouse policy, medical hardship etc. The Committee did not accept the ground that the petitioner is suffering from chronic hepatitis for re-allocation of his services as the said disease is not covered for change of State cadre. Therefore, the Committee decided to recommend the representation of the petitioner for rejection for his re-allocation. The main contention of the petitioner is that as he belongs to SC and domicile of MP he should be allocated to MP. The Administrative Department has refuted claims of the petitioner for re-allocation his services to State of M.P. by assigning sufficient reasons to all the other grounds raised by him. The consideration of this case was deferred as the issue relating to accrual of benefits by the dependents of the SC/ST employees in Chhattisgarh and who are domicile of MP needs to be sorted out in the first instance as explained at Sl.No.3. In compliance with the directions dated 15/11/2011 of Hon 'ble High Court of M.P. the representation of the petitioner was examined by his Administrative Department. They refuted his claim for re-allocation to State of M.P. by assigning valid reasons for allocation of juniors to M.P. but they did not brought to the notice of the Committee about the claim of the petitioner for allocation for M.P. on the ground that his daughter is 50% handicapped due to cerebral Palsy. So, the Committee decided to defer the consideration of this case. The main contention of the petitioner is that as he belongs to SC and his domicile state is MP, he should be allocated to MP. The Administrative Department has refuted claim of the petitioner for re-allocation his services to State of M.P. on other grounds by assigning valid reasons. The consideration of this case was deferred as the issue relating to accrual of benefits by the dependents of the SC/ST employees in Chhattisgarh and who are domicile of MP needs to be sorted out in the first instance as exjjlained at Sl.No.3.

7 assigrung valid reasons. The consideration of this case was deferred as the issue relating to accrual of benefits by the dependents of the SC/ST employees in Chhattisgarh and who are domicile of MP needs to be sorted out in the first instance as explained at Sl.No Gagan Kumar Gaur, AG II (WP No. 5528/06) 21 Umesh Kulkarni, Sub- Engineer. WRD ( WP No. 5385/08) 22 Balkrishan Kayarkar, Sub-Engineer. WRD (W.P. No. 823/06) 23 M K Mansuri, Sub- Engr. (1887/08) 24 L B Bamoria, Sub Engineer (336/06) The Administrative Department refuted the claim of the petitioner for change of State cadre of petitioner from Chhattisgarh to M.P. on the basis of grounds raised by him in his representation. The petitioner did not mention the names of the Assistants, who were got higher scale of Rs , and were not allocated to Chhattisgarh being junior in the said scale. The Committee, therefore, decided to recommend the representation of the petitioner for rejection. The petitioner will be communicated about the rejection of his representation by issuing a detailed speaking order. On the recommendation of Principal Secretary of Administrative Department, the Committee decided to recommend the re-allocation of petitioner from Chhattisgarh to M.P. on the ground that his dependent family member is suffering from schizophrenia. In compliance with the directions dated 15/ of was examined by his Administrative Department. They refuted his claim for re-allocation to State of M.P. by assigning valid reasons. On the recommendation of Administrative Department, the representation of the petitioner was recommended for rejection by the Committee as none of the grounds raised by him in his representation is covered for his re-allocation under the existing guidelines of allocation. The petitioner will be communicated about the rejection of his representation by issuing a detailed speaking order. The Administrative Department refuted the claim of the petitioner for change of State cadre on the ground that his juniors were allocated to M.P. They clarified in the meeting that 52 junior Sub-Engineers named by him have been allocated to M.P. under mutual transfer policy. Regarding his mutual transfer with Shri K K Saxena, it was clarified that their application for mutual transfer was not received by Administrative Department. The Committee, therefore, decided to recommend to reject his representation for change of State allocation. The petitioner will be communicated about the rejection of his representation by issuing a detailed speaking order. The main contention of the petitioner is that as he belongs to SC and domicile of MP, he should be allocated to MP. The Administrative Department has refuted claims of the

8 -ipetitioner on other grounds for re-allocation his services to State of M.P. by assigning valid reasons. The consideration of this case was deferred as the issue relating to accrual of benefits by the dependents of the SC/ST employees in Chhattisgarh who are domicile of MP needs to be sorted out in the first instance. 25 Har Kishor Malviya, Assistant Engrineer (7217/06) 26 Devendra Kumar Sharma, Sub-Engr. (3673/08) 27 N K Garg, Sub-Engr. (5549/08) 28 P N Mahajan, Sub- Engr. ( ) 29 Narendra Singh Yadav, Sub-Engr. (2710/05 & WANo ) 30 Rajeev Ranjan Khare, Sub-Engineer. (WP No /07) The main contention of the petitioner is that as he belongs to SC and domicile of MP, he should be allocated to MP. The Administrative Department has refuted claims of the petitioner on other grounds for re-allocation his services to State of M.P. by assigning valid reasons to the other grounds raised by him. The consideration of this case was deferred as the issue is relating to accrual of benefits by the dependents of the SC/ST employees in Chhattisgarh who are domicile of MP needs to be sorted out in the first instance. All the grounds raised by the petitioners were examined by his Administrative Department. They also informed the Committee that his juniors named by him were allocated to M.P. under specific provisions under the policy. The Committee, therefore, decided to recommend to reject his representation as the grounds raised by him for his re-allocation are not covered under the policy of State re-allocation. A detailed speaking order may be issued by Govt. of India. All the. grounds raised by the petitioner have been examined by his Administrative Department and none of them is covered under the guidelines for re-allocation. Hence, they refuted his claim for re-allocation to State of M.P. The Committee, therefore, decided to recommend to reject his representation. A detailed speaking order may be issued by Govt. of India. Administration Department refuted the claims of the petitioners as details of junior employees said to have been allocated to MP has not been given in the representation. Committee, therefore, recommended to reject his representation. Govt. Of India may issue a detailed speaking order. On the request of Administrative Department the consideration of this case was deferred by the committee as the Judgement dated 13/08/2008 of Double Judges Bench in W.A. No in the matter of R S Chaurasia versus Union of India and others has a bearing on this case because of allocation of juniors to M.P. in lower pay scale. In compliance with the directions dated 15111/2011 of was examined by his Administrative Department. On the recommendation of Administrative Department the representation of the petitioner was recommended for rejection by the

9 -i- Committee as all the grounds raised by him in his representation are not covered for his re-allocation under the existing guidelines of allocation. The petitioner will be communicated about the rejection of his representation by issuing a detailed speaking order. 31 S R Singh, Sub- Engineer. WRD, (WP No. 9012/07) 32 R K Srivastava, Sub- Engineer. WRD (W No. 26/06) 33 Ashok Kumar Verma, Sub-Engineer. WRD (WP No. 2227/05 ) 34 Suresh Chandra Khandesh, Sub- Engineer. (WP No ) 35 Sanjay Nigam, Sub- Engineer. WRD ( WP No. 3606/05) 36 Vijay Kumar Khatri, Sub-Engineer. WRD ( WP No.3034/05) The Administrative Department informed that the Writ Petition No. 9012/07 has been disposed of and speaking order was passed in compliance with directions dated 30/07/07. They further informed that the petitioner has filed another W.P. No /07 and the Hon'ble Court is still to dispose of the said petition. At present no further action is required as counter affidavit has already been filed by the Government of India. All the grounds raised by the petitioner have been examined by his Administrative Department and none of them is covered under the guidelines for re-allocation. Hence, they refuted his claim for re-allocation to State of M.P. The Committee, therefore, decided to recommend to reject his representation. A detailed speaking order may be issued by Govt. of India. The Administrative Department informed the Committee that the mutual transfer of the petitioner has been decided and he has been allocated to M.P. The Committee noted that no further-action is called for on the direction of the High Court. The Administrative Department informed the Committee that they have filed Writ Appeal No against the judgment dated 14109/06 passed in W.P. No by the Hon'ble High Court. No further action is required at present in this case. The Administrative Department informed the Committee that the petitioner has expired and no further action is required in this case. In compliance with the directions dated 01107/2006 of was examined by his Administrative Department. They refuted his claim for re-allocation to State of M.P. by assigning cogent reasons to all the grounds raised by him in his representation. On the recommendation of Administrative Department the representation of the petitioner was recommended for rejection by the Committee as none of the grounds raised by him in his representation is covered under the existing guidelines of allocation. The petitioner will be communicated about the rejection of his representation by issuing a detailed speaking order. 37 Santosh Kumar Rathore, The Administrative Department informed the Committee that the

10 Asstt. Engineer, WRD (WP No. 1761/04) Ashok Kumar Goyal, Sub-Engineer. WRD (WP No. 2014/05) Kirti Kumar Chaudhary, Sub-Engineer., WRD ( WP No. 3693/07) Satyendra Singh Sikarwar, Asstt. Engineer. WRD(WPNo. 4310/06) Suresh Kumar Sharma, Sub-Engineer.WRD (2935/05 and W A No. 422/11) Ramesh Chandra Soni, Sub-Engineer. (WP No. 3002/05) Hari Shankar Sharma, Sub-Engineer. WRD (WA No. 647/11) Anand Kumar Tripathi, Sub-Engineer. WRD, WA No. 446/11) petitioner is no more surviving at present and no further action is required in this case. The Administrative Department informed the Committee that the petitioner had been relieved for joining the State of Chhattisgarh. No further action is required. In compliance with the directions dated 14/12/2011 of was examined by his Administrative Department. They refuted his claims for re-allocation to State of M.P. with proper justification. On the recommendation of Administrative Department, the representation of the petitioner was recommended for rejection by the Committee as none of the grounds raised by him in his representation IS covered under the existing guidelines of allocation. The petitioner will be communicated about the rejection of his representation by issuing a detailed speaking order. The Administrative Department informed the Committee that the petitioner is no more surviving at present and no further action is required in this case. The Administrative Department informed the Committee that in this case an appeal has been filed by the State Government against the judgment dated 15/12/2010. No further action is required till decision of the appellate court in the Writ Appeal is received. The Administrative Department informed the Committee that the petitioner had been allocated to M.P. No further action is required in the matter. In compliance with the directions dated 15/ of was examined by his Administrative Department. They refuted all his claims with sufficient justifications. On the recommendation of Administrative Department, the representation of the petitioner was recommended for rejection by the Committee as none of the grounds raised by him in his representation is covered for his reallocation under the existing guidelines of allocation. The petitioner will be communicated about the rejection of his representation by the issuing a detailed speaking order. In compliance with the directions dated 15/ of was examined by his Administrative Department. They refuted his claims for re-allocation to State of M.P. On the recommendation of Administrative Department, the representation of the petitioner was recommended for rejection by the Committee as none of the

11 er 45 Nand Kishore Srivastava, Sub Engineer, WRD (WP No. 5384/08) 46 Mirza Kadir Beg, Sub Engineer, (W.P. No ) 47 Subhash Chandra Gupta, Sub-Engineer. WRD (WPNo. 2476/05 and WA No ) 48 Rajendra Singh Bhadoria, Tracer, WRD ( and WA No.423/11) 49 Vishwanath Bansal, Sub-Engineer. (WP No. 2936/05) 50 Arun Kumar Ingole, Sub-Engineer (Civil) WP No. (2400/09) _Ie - grounds raised by him in his representation is covered under the existing guidelines. The petitioner will be communicated about the rejection of his representation by issuing a detailed speaking order. In compliance -with the directions dated 15/ of was examined by his Administrative Department. They refuted his claims for re-allocation to State of M.P. 'on various grounds with proper justifications. On the recommendation of Administrative Department the representation of the petitioner was recommended for rejection by the Committee as none of the grounds raised by him in his representation is covered under the existing guidelines. The petitioner will be communicated about the rejection of his representation by the issuing a detailed speaking order. The Administrative Department of the petitioner informed the Committee that he stands retired on 31108/2012 and no further action is required. On the request of Administrative Department the consideration of this case was deferred by the committee as the Judgement dated 13/08/2008 of Double Judges Bench in W.A. No in the matter of R S Chaurasia versus Union of India and others has bearing on this case because of allocation of one junior viz. Shri B.C. Jain to M.P. because of data feeding error regarding his seniority. On the request of Administrative Department the consideration of this case was deferred by the committee as the Judgement dated 13/08/2008 of Double Judges Bench in W.A. No in the matter of R S Chaurasia versus Union of India and others has a bearing on this case because of allocation of juniors to M.P. in lower pay scale. On the request of Administrative Department the consideration of this case was deferred by the committee as the Judgement dated 13/08/2008 of Double Judges Bench in W.A. No in the matter of R S Chaurasia versus Union of India and others has a bearing on this case because of allocation of juniors to M.P. in lower pay scale. The Administrative Department informed the Committee that the petitioner had availed the benefit of mutual transfer. The Committee decided that Administrative Department will examine the application of mutual transfer of petitioner and communicate the final decision to him to comply with the directions of the Hon'ble High Court. 51 Bhagwan Singh In compliance with the directions dated 15/ of

12 ~ -11- Chauhan, Sub-Engineer. WRD (WPNo ) 52 A K Gupta, Sub Engineer, WRD (WP No. 5279/06) 53 Rakesh Kumar & P N Sharma, Asstt. Engineers (WP No. 837/12) 54 Shailendra Kumar Gite, Sub-Engineer. WRD (WP No. 3056/06) 55 A S Parihar, Sub Engineer, WRD (WP No ) was examined by his Administrative Department. They refuted all his claims for re-allocation to State of M.P. with proper justifications. On the recommendation of Administrative Department, the representation of the petitioner was recommended for rejection by the Committee as none of the grounds raised by him in his representation is covered under the existing guidelines of allocation. The petitioner will be communicated about the rejection of his representation by issuing a detailed speaking order. The consideration of this case are deferred by the Committee because Administrative Department did not clarify in their comments the reasons for allocation of two junior Sub-Engineers namely Shri R.P. Srivastava and Shri Narendra Kumar Garg, who were made respondent No.5 & 6. On the request of the Administrative. Department the Committee deferred the consideration of this case and decided that a detailed write up will be sent by them intimating the difficulties involved in the implementation of judgment dated 13/08/2008 in W.A. No R S Chaurasia versus Union of India and others by_ the WRD D~artment. The Committee was informed that the petitioner was allocated in the pay scale of Rs which he was not drawing as on 23/09/2000. The petitioner got the aforesaid scale on October, His name should not have been included in the pay scale group of Rs because he was given the pay scale after the publication of TFAL on The Committee noted that the petitioner was wrongly allocated to the State of Chhattisgarh in the higher pay scale instead of in the lower pay scale of Rs in which he was senior. The Committee, therefore, recommended the re-allocation of the petitioner from the State of Chhattisgarh to the State of M.P. in the pay scale of Rs The main contention of the petitioner is that as he belongs to SC and domicile of MP, he should be allocated to MP. The Administrative Department has refuted claim of the petitioner for re-allocation his services to State of M.P. by assigning sufficient reasons to all the other grounds raised by him. The consideration of this case was deferred as the issue relating to accrual of benefits by the dependents of the SCIST employees in Chhattisgarh and who are domicile of MP needs to be sorted out in the first instance. 56 S K Rai, Sub-Engineer, WRD, (WP No. 62/06) The main contention of the petitioner is that as he belongs to SC and domicile of MP, he should be allocated to MP. The Administrative Department has refuted claim of the petitioner for re-allocation his services to State of M.P. by assigning sufficient reasons to all the other grounds raised by him.

13 -L2.- The consideration of this case was deferred as the issue relating to accrual of benefits by the dependents of the SC/ST employees in Chhattisgarh and who are domicile of MP needs to be sorted out in the first instance. 57 Sudhir Kumar Mishra, Sub-Engineer. (WP No. 1980/05) 58 Nitin S. Joshi, Sub- Engineer. PWD (005/006) 59 Dinesh Chandra Srivastava, Sub- Engineer. WRD, (5210/06) (W.A. No. 547/2010) 60 Manoj Kumar Kalosiya, Sub-Engineerm WRD (WP No ) 61 Ravi Kant Garg, Asstt. Engineer. WRD, (WP No.3419/09) 62 H P Malhotra, Sub- Engineer (WP No. 60/06) All the grounds raised by the petitioner have been examined by his Administrative Department and none of them is covered under the guidelines for re-allocation. Hence, they refuted his claim for re-allocation to State of M.P. The Committee, therefore, decided to recommend to reject his representation. A detailed speaking order may be issued by Govt. of India. The Department of Water Resources informed that the petitioner belongs to PWD. The Committee decided to obtain the comments of the Administrative Department of the petitioner and placed this case before it in its next meeting. The Committee was informed that on 28/08/2009 the Hon'ble High Court in W.P. No. 5210/06 quashed his allocation order for the State of Chhattisgarh. The Writ Appeal filed by State Government against the said judgment has been dismissed on 08/ by the Double Judges bench of the Court. Committee noted that it is too late to file Review Petition and no further action is needed at this stage. The main contention of the petitioner is that as he belongs to SC and domicile of MP, he should be allocated to MP. The Administrative Department has refuted claim of the petitioner for re-allocation his services to State of M.P. by assigning sufficient reasons to all the other grounds raised by him. The consideration of this case was deferred as the issue relating to accrual of benefits by the dependents of the SC/ST employees in Chhattisgarh and who are domicile of MP needs to be sorted out in the first instance. All the grounds raised by the petitioner have been examined by his Administrative Department and none of them is covered under the guidelines for re-allocation. Hence, they refuted his claim for re-allocation to State of M.P. The Committee, therefore, decided to recommend to reject his representation. A detailed speaking order may be issued by Govt. of India. The main contention of the petitioner is that as he belongs to SC and domicile of MP, he should be allocated to MP. The Administrative Department has refuted claim of the petitioner for re-allocation his services to State of M.P. by assigning sufficient reasons to all the other grounds raised by him. The consideration of this case was deferred as the issue relatin& to

14 -., -13- accrual of benefits by the dependents of the SC/ST employees in Chhattisgarh and who are domicile of MP needs to be sorted out in the first instance. 63 Suresh Chandra Sharma, Sub-Engineer (W.P. No and WA No.220/11) 64 R N S Bhadoria, SADO (W.P. No.1045/06) Agriculture Deptt. 65 Kirti Kumar Jain, RAEO (W.P. No. 3693/07) 66 C S Tomar, SADO (W.P. No. 1043/06) On the request of the Administrative Department the Committee deferred the consideration of this case and decided that a detailed write up will be sent by them explaining the difficulties involved in the implementation of judgment dated 13/08/2008 in W.A. No. 783/07 - R S Chaurasia versus Union of India and others in WRD. The representative of Administrative Department informed the Committee that the contention of the petitioner that his 12 junior SADOs were allocated to M.P., is not correct. He informed that two junior SADOs namely Shri Babu Lal Thakur and Shri Suresh Babu Sharma were allocated to M.P. due to error in data feeding in their seniority and other ten junior SADOs were allocated to M.P. under special provision of allocation under the guidelines. The Committee decided to recommend the rejection of representation of petitioner and re-allocate the services of two junior SADOs, who were allocated to M.P. due to error in their seniority, to the State of Chhattisgarh. The consideration of this case was deferred for want of complete details from Administrative Department. The representative of Administrative Department informed the Committee that the contention of the petitioner that his 12 junior SADOs were allocated to M.P., is not correct. He informed that two junior SADOs were allocated to M.P. due to data feeding error in their seniority and other ten junior SADOs were allocated to M.P. under special provision of allocation under the guidelines. The Committee decided to recommend the rejection of representation of petitioner and re-allocate the services of two junior SADOs, who were allocated to M.P. due to error in their seniority, to the State of Chhattisgarh 67 Mukesh Kumar Sharma, The consideration of these cases was deferred for want of Steno Gr. III complete details from Administrative Department. (W.P. No ) 68 Suresh Chandra Chaudhary, Steno G-III (W.P. No. 1153/06) 69 R S Tomar, RAEO (W.P. No. 2136/06) The representative of Administrative Department informed the 70 R S Bais RAEO Committee that appeals are going to be filed in the Double Judges (W.P. No. 1383/06) Bench against the judgment dated 15/12/2010 of the Single Judge 71 Harendra Pal Singh Bench. Hence, no further action is called for at this stage. RAEO ~--~ ~--~ ~--~ ~--~

15 .~ -14 (W.P. No. 1087/07) 72 Mahesh Prasad Sharma (WA 705/08) ~ The representative of Administrative Department informed the Committee that the petitioner stands retired on 31112/2011. No further action is required in the matter. 73 L S Rajput, SADO The Committee directed that Administrative Department would (W.P. No. 2708/06) obtain the judgment of the Court and examine the case in the light 74 Rewa Ram Yadav of directions of the Court and facts given by the petitioner in his SADO representation and submit a report to the Committee in its next (W.P. No. 1508/06) meeting. ~--~ ~--~ 75 Ram Lal Kushwaha, SADO (W.P. No. 1165/06) 76 Sudhakar Harne, SADO (W.P. No. 1048/06) 77 S K Soni RAEO (7706/06) 78 Mahesh Prasad Shukla, SADO (W.A. 705/08) 79 P D Rai, RAEO (11127/05) The representative of Administrative Department informed the Committee that they are in the process of collecting a copy of the judgment, W.P. and representation for examination. The Committee deferred the consideration of this case for the next meeting. The representative of Administrative Department informed to the Committee that the petitioner stands retired on "31108/2011. No further action is required in the matter.. On 05/05/2006 the Hon'ble High Court of M.P. allowed the W.P. and quashed the allocation order dated 11109/2002 of the petitioner to the State of Chhattisgarh. The Administrative Department of the petitioner has examined the representation of the petitioner in pursuance of Hon'ble High Court' directions and recommended for re-allocation of his services from the State of Chhattisgarh to the State of M.P. on the ground that 51 junior RAEOs were allocated to M.P. in the pay scale ofrs in the same category. The Committee accepted the recommendation of the State Government and decided to re-allocate the services of the petitioner from Chhattisgarh to M.P. State on the ground that his juniors were allocated to M.P. under similar conditions in which the allocation of the petitioner took place. The Administrative Department of the petitioner has examined the representation of the petitioner in pursuance of Hon'ble High Court' directions and recommended for re-allocation of his services from the State of Chhattisgarh to the State of M.P. on the ground that 58 junior RAEOs were allocated to M.P. in the pay scale ofrs in the same category. The Committee accepted the recommendation of the State Government and decided to re-allocate the services of the petitioner from Chhattisgarh to M.P. State on the ground that his juniors were allocated to M.P. under similar conditions in which the allocation of the petitioner took place. On 01102/12the Hon'ble High Court of M.P. allowed the W.P. and quashed the allocation order dated 11109/2002 of the

16 B N Srivastava, RAEO (11184/05) D P Napit, RAEO (W.P. No. 9292/05) Mohan Sharan Khare, SADO, Dlo Agriculture (W.A. No. 225/12) Narendra Kumar Visbaiya, Asstt. G-II, Dlo Transport. (WP No. 8358/2006) Ashok Kumar Bule, Asstt. Grade II, Dlo Commercial Tax (WP No. 3098/2006) -ISpetitioner to the State of Chhattisgarh. The Administrative Department of the petitioner has examined the representation of the petitioner in pursuance of Hon'ble High Court' directions and recommended for re-allocation of his services from the State of Chhattisgarh to the State of M.P. on the ground that 29 junior RAEOs were allocated to M:P. in the pay scale ofrs in the same category. The Committee accepted the recommendation of the State Government and decided.to re-allocate the services of the petitioner from Chhattisgarh to M.P. State on the ground that his juniors were allocated to M.P. under similar conditions in which the allocation of the petitioner took place. On 22/02/2012 the Hon'ble High Court of M.P. allowed the W.P. and quashed the allocation order dated 11109/2002 of the petitioner to the State of Chhattisgarh. The Administrative Department of the petitioner has examined the representation of the petitioner in pursuance of Hon'ble High Court' directions and recommended for re-allocation of his services from the State of Chhattisgarh to the State of M.P. on the ground that 29 junior RAEOs were allocated to M.P. in the pay scale ofrs in the same category. The Committee accepted the recommendation of the State Government and decided to re-allocate the services of the petitioner from Chhattisgarh to M.P. State on the ground that his juniors were allocated to M.P. under similar conditions in which the allocation of the petitioner took place. The representative of Administrative Department informed the Committee that they are in the process of collecting a copy of the judgment, W.P. and representation for examination. The Committee deferred the consideration of this case till the next meeting. The representative of Administrative Department informed that the representation of the petitioner and Writ Petition are not available. The Committee decided that the Administrative Department would obtain representation and Writ Petition etc and furnish their comments in its next meeting. The Committee decided to recommend his re-allocation from Chhattisgarh to M.P. as he belongs to SC category and his request is covered under the guidelines of allocation for SCIST employees. On the recommendation of Administrative Department the Committee recommended the re-allocation of petitioner from Chhattisgarh to M.P. state under spouse policy as his wife is working as Assistant Teacher since 07/12/2008 in State Government School at Indore.

17 .f 85 Trilok Chand Gupta, Panchayat and Social Education Organiser, D/o Social Welfare (W.P. No. 769/2005) 86 Rakesh Kumar Sharma, Sub-Engineer (Civil), PHE (2257/2005) 87 Ashok Kumar Tomar, Sub-Engineer, PHE (3423/2005) 88 C. L. Koshta, Sub- Engineer, PHE (4918/2005) 89 P.N. Parmar, Sub- Engineer, PHE (1724/2005) 90 Bahadur Singh, Steno, GAD (W.P. No. 2640/2012) - Ib- Consideration of this case was deferred for want of comments of administrative Department and committee decided that GAD would obtain the comments and place this case before it in its next meeting. The representatives of the Administrative Department informed the Committee that they have filed a Writ Appeal against judgment dated 15/12/2010 of Hon'ble High Court. No action is necessary till the decision of Appellate Court in the Writ Appeal filed by the State Government is available. The Committee was informed that on 12/03/2008 the Hon'ble High Court quashed the order of allocation of the petitioner of the State of Chhattisgarh on the ground that Central Government did not take into account the fact that wife of the petitioner had been suffering from breast cancer and was getting treatment from cancer hospital and Research Institute, while rejecting his application in 2005 on the recommendation of the Committee. No appeal was filed against the said judgment by the Central Government as well as State Government. The Committee decided to accept the judgment dated 12/03/2008 of the Hon'ble High Court for quashing the allocation order of the petitioner. The Committee deferred the consideration of this case and decided that petitioner should obtain a fresh certificate from district medical board prescribing the disease and its intensity. On the recommendation of Administrative Department the Committee decided to recommend the representation of the petitioner for rejection as none of the grounds raised by him is covered under the existing guidelines. On the recommendation of Administrative Department the Committee decided to recommend the re-allocation of the petitioner from Chhattisgarh to M.P. as per his entitlement on the basis of the seniority granted to him since Pramod Kumar Dubey, The Department of Public Health and Family Welfare failed to Medical Officer furnish their comments on the representation of the petitioners (WP No. 2398/2007) despite specifically directing them in the last meeting. 92 D.L. Rathore, Medical Accordingly, the consideration of these cases was deferred by the Specialist Committee. It was also decided to obtain the comments of the (WP No ) Administrative Department well in advance for consideration in 93 Krishna Kumar the next meeting of the Committee. Bhargava, Child Specialist, PH&FW (WP No. 1086/2005) 94 R.P. Srivastava, Medical Specialist, ~--~ ~-4 ~--~ ~--~

18 - '7- PH&FW (WP No. 4369/2007) 95 Ashok Kumar Dixit, Chief Medical & Health Officer, PH&FW JWP No. 4996/2006) 96 Ramesh Kumar Nema, Medical Specialist, PH&FW J:l836/2007) 97 Shyam Sunder Mahajan, RAEO, (2985/2006) 98 Santosh Kumar Parmar, RAEO, D/o Agriculture W.P. No. 2974/2006) The Administrative Department examined the representation of the petitioner in the light of the judgment dated of the Hon'ble High Court and informed that acceptance of the request of the petitioner on the ground that his juniors were allocated to M.P. will give rise the opening of cases of 34 RAEOs who are senior and were allocated to Chhattisgarh. Keeping in view the above fact, the Committee recommended to reject the representation. The Administrative Department examined the representation of the petitioner in the light of the judgment dated of the Hon'ble High Court and informed that acceptance of the request of the petitioner on the ground that his juniors were allocated to M.P. will give rise the opening of cases of 38 RAEOs who are senior and were allocated to Chhattisgarh. Keeping in view the above fact the Committee recommended to reject the representation. 99 Vijay Kumar Mohase, The main contention of the petitioner is that as he belongs to SC Asstt. Engineer, WRD and domicile ofmp, he should be allocated to MP. 100 Gya Deen Kori, Sub- The Administrative Department has refuted claim of the petitioner Engineer, WRD for re-allocation his services to State of M.P. by assigning 101 Prakash Chandra sufficient reasons to all the other grounds raised by him. The Sankala, Sub-Engineer, consideration of this case was deferred as the issue relating to WRD accrual of benefits by the dependents of the SC/ST employees is challenging and who are domicile of MP needs to be sorted out in the first instance as explained at S1.No.3. ~--~~~~--~~~~ ~--~~~~~~----~ 102 Murari Lal Shakya, RAEO, Agriculture 103 Sewa Ram Khede, RAEO, Agriculture 104 R.D. Shakya, Compounder, PH&FW The Committee decided to recommend the re-allocation of both the employees belonging to SC from Chhattisgarh to M.P. as their request is covered by the guidelines of allocation for SC/ST employees. The Committee again deferred the consideration of this case because Administrative Department of the applicant did not furnish facts regarding his caste and domicile. The said information in respect of the employee may be ascertained from the Madhya Pradesh/Chhattisgarh Government on the basis of entries in his service book. This item will be considered in the next meeting.