logo

This Product is Licensed to ,

Change Font Style & Size  Show / Hide
24

  •            

 
CDJ 2026 MPHC 265 My Notes print Preview print print
Court : High Court of Madhya Pradesh (Bench at Gwailor)
Case No : Writ Petition No. 33765 Of 2026
Judges: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SINGH BAHRAWAT
Parties : Chandra Bhan Singh Tomar Versus The State Of Madhya Pradesh & Others
Appearing Advocates : For the Petitioner: Vinay Kumar, Advocate. For the Respondents: K.K. Prajapati, Government Advocate.
Date of Judgment : 18-08-2026
Head Note :-
Constitution of India - Article 226 -

Comparative Citation:
2026 MPHC-GWL 25019,
Judgment :-

1. This petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has been filed seeking following relief(s):-

          "7.1 The impugned order dated 22.01.2006 vide Annexure- P/1 and the impugned order dated 20.09.2024 vide Annexure P-3 kindly be set aside to the extent that no difference of pay will be given to the Petitioner as the same is against the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ram Naresh Rawat (2017)3 SCC 436 and further, the concerning authority kindly be directed to extend benefits of Permanent Classified employees to the Petitioner, in accordance with law with a further to pay difference of salary, arrears of pay etc alongwith interest @ 18% per annum, in the light of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ram Naresh Rawat v/s Ashwani Ray (2017)3 SCC 436.

          7.2 Any other just and proper relief warranting under the facts and circumstances of the case be also given to the Petitioner, in the ends of justice."

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the present petition may be disposed of with a direction to the respondent/competent authority to consider and decide the representation (Annexure P-8) dated 10.04.2026 submitted by the petitioner, in the light of the judgment passed in Thakur Das Rajput v. State of M.P. and Others, in W.P. No.18796 of 2025 and other connected petitions, decided on 19.01.2026, as well as the judgment passed in Ram Naresh Rawat v. Ashwini Rai, reported in (2017) 3 SCC 436. It is further submitted that the respondent/competent authority may also be directed to consider the Circular dated 16.10.2024. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the benefit of the aforesaid judgments and circular has already been extended to similarly situated persons and, therefore, the same benefit may also be extended to the petitioner, he being similarly situated.

3. Learned Government Advocate has not opposed the limited prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner.

4. Considering the aforesaid submissions, the present petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent/competent authority to consider and decide the representation dated 10.04.2026 submitted by the petitioner, in accordance with law, keeping in view the judgments passed in Thakur Das Rajput (supra) and Ram Naresh Rawat (supra), as well as the Circular dated 16.10.2024.

5. Needless to emphasize that, in case the claim of the petitioner is found to be similar to that of Thakur Das Rajput (supra) and Ram Naresh Rawat (supra), and the benefit thereof has been extended to similarly situated persons, then the same benefit shall also be extended to the petitioner herein within the same period.

6. With the aforesaid, the present petition stands disposed of.

7. Needless to emphasize that this Court has not examined the merits of the claim made by the petitioner, and it shall be open for the competent authority to consider and decide the same strictly in accordance with law.

8. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.
 
  CDJLawJournal