MINUTES OF THE I ~Tli MEETING OF STATE ADVISORY COMMITTEE HELD ON291

] 2/J0 AT J2.00 PM I~ CONFERENCE ROOM NO. 190. NORTH BLOCK. NEW DELHIUNDER THE CHAIRMANSHIP OF .lS(AT&A)

In compliance with the directions dated 17.04.2007 of the Hon 'ble High COLlr!of Chhatisgarh alBilaspur in Writ Petition No. 445/200 J in the matter of Godbole and others versus Union of India andothers the 15th Meeting of the Committee was held under the Chairmanship of Shri Rajee\ Kapoor, .Ioil11Secretar). DOP1 on 29112/20 10 at 12.00 PM in Conference Room no. 190. North Block. List ofattendants is enclosed at Annexure "A ".

The Chairman welcomed the members of the Committee and desired to know the implementationof decisions taken in the last meeting. It was informed that % Water Resources has not issued revisedallocation orders so far parallel to the orders issued by this Department. Chairman directed to issue therevised allocation order immediately in compliance with the directions of the Committee in the lastmeeting. Thereafter the Committee took up the agenda of the meeting for discussion. In the meeting therepresentations of State Government employees of erstwhile State of Madhya Pradesh. covered b) thedecision dated 17.04.2007 in W.P. No. 445/200 I were individually discussed for revision of theirallocation of State Cadre. The Committee also considered the cases of allocation/re-allocation where VIPreferences are pending for reply or fresh allocation of leftover employees is still pending or whereHon 'ble High Court of M.P. has given directions to Union of India for deciding the representations of thepetitioners afresh. The brief record of discussion in each case has been reflected in the last column of thetable.

: SL Name of the PetitionerNo.

Shri P.L. Kumhar. Sub- 258/06Engineer. v\'RD.Shir Baiwant Singh Mahor. 2263/09Sub-Engineer. WRD.

• Shri Rakesh Babu Shakya. 4825/05Sub-Engineer. WRD.Shri Arun Ramchander Salve. 2 J 8/06Sub-Engineer. WRD.Shri Teji Lal Mehra, Sub- 2761/05

• Engineer, PHE.Shri Ram Mi Ian AhilVvar. 14996/08

, Fisheries Inspector. FisheriesDepartment.Shri Shyamratan Manghogre. 2252/02Asstt. Dev. Ext. Officer,

, Panchayat and RuralDevelopment.

The Committee noted that all the si); cases of statere-allocation as per their option and'or domiciie arecovered under the recent clarifications issued by thisDepartment on 24.06.20 J 0 regarding allocation ofSc/ST employees. So the Committee decided 10

recommend the revision of state allocation of all thesix petitioners from Chhatisgarh to M.P. as the)belong to SC category and they are the domicile ofMadhya Pradesh and opted for the same .

The Committee noted that this case of state re-allocation as per option and/or domicile is coveredunder the recent clarifications issued by the,Department on 24.6.20 I0 regarding allocation ofSClST employees. So the Committee decided torecommend the revision of state allocation of thepetitioner from M.P. to Chhatisgarh as he r:~longs to :SC category and he is a domicile of Chhattiss:arh State.

\

rv·lA+.--."-PLv., ;,.-...-,L,

/"-J

Narendra Kumar Gupta, SubEngineer, WRDpile No. 14/45/06-SRS

Mukul Jain, Asstt Engineer,WRDFile No. 14/2'7/09-SRS

P S V Nair, ARO, WRDFile No. 14/33/2010 ·SR(S)

IManish Sharma, SubEngineer, WRDFile No. 14/12/07 -SR(S)

I 3690/07II

It was informed by the representative ofAdministrative Department in the meeting thatseniority of the Asstt. Engineers is pending for decisionin the Hon'ble Supreme Court and there is an order ofthe Hon 'ble Court that status quo is to be maintained.So the Committee decided to keep this case pending forchange of state re-allocation till the seniority relatedcase is decided by the Hon 'ble Supreme Court.

The Committee deferred the consideration of thiscase for want of full facts of the case and directed that

I this case may be placed in its next meeting afterI obtaining full facts of the case from the AdministrativeI Department of the petitioner.

The Committee noted that Shri Nair has filed aContempt Petition No. 1174/10 against the formerSecretary (Pers.) for not complying with the directionsdated 10/4/10 of Hon'ble High Court of M.P. in W.P.No. 4428/06. The Counter Affidavit in the ContemptPetition was to be filed in the Hon'ble High Court ofM.P. by 5th January, 2011. The Committee consideredthe revision of state allocation of Shri P.S.V. Nair.ARO on the basis of comments of Deptt. of WaterResources. In the comments it has been confirmed thatShri Nair falls at SI. No. 24 of the list of Asstt.Research Officers who were allocated to the State ofM.P. in view of the re-allocation of the posts of AROsbetween the successor states of M.P. and Chhatisgarhin ratio of 49:62 by the Central Government on21.10.2008.

The Committee accepted the representation of thepetitioner, Shri Nair and decided to recommend therevision of his State allocation from Chhatisgarh toM.P. in compliance with the directions of 10.4.2010 ofHon'ble Hiah Court in W.P. No. 4428/06.

The representative of the Deptt. of WaterResources informed in the meeting that they areseeking legal opinion for filing appeal against thejudgement dated 17.8.2009 in WP No. 3690/07 as theallocation order was quashed without any direction. Itwas also informed that Central Government had sentWrit Appeal to the former Asstt. Solicitor General ofIndia for filing in the Court. But he advised to decidethe representation by passing the speaking order inconsultation with the State Govt. after affording him anopportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner. Thepetitioner was personally heard and during hearing. hecontended that Sub-Engineers junior to him have beenallocated to the State of Madhva Pradesh. The

OJ' / ,./

'ir /I

/-----_ ....--._--------------------~-----_._. __._---------_._----

Comments or State Administrative Departmem areawaited.

The Committee decided that State GovernlTlel1lma~ file 'V,'ri\ l,ppeal against the jucigement of Hor, 'bit:High Co un ao earl~ a~ possible. if the groundc. raisedby the petit ioner to:- re-allocation to M. P. are nm !

tenable. after seeking legal advice and submit a reportto this department . .A decision in regard to filing writappeal by this Department would be taken after receiptof Legal Advice from the State Government.

12 Mahesh Kumar Srivastava., Sub Engineer, WRD, File No. !4/55/07-SRS

13 Subodh Chandm .lain. Sub 5007/06Engineer. WRDFile No 14.'18/10-SRS

14 Deepak Kumar Awasthi. Sub 2669/05Engineer. WRD

, File No. j 4'193/05-SR(S)

The representative of the Deptt of WaterResources informed in the meeting that they wereseeking legal opinion for filing appeal against thejudgement dated 21/08/09 in W.P. No. 4606/06 as theallocation order was quashed without any direction. Itwas also informed that Central Government has alreadysent Writ Appeal to the fortner Asstt. Solicitor Genera!of India (ASG) for filing in the Court. The presentASG has been reminded about the status of filing theAppeal against the j udgemem of Hon' ble High Court.

The Committee decided that State Govemmemma) file Writ Appeal againsl the judgement of Hon'bieHigh Coun as earl~ as possible after seekinf' legaladvice and submit a repOJ1 to this Department.Thereafter a decision on filing writ appeal b; thi~Departmem would be taken.

The Committee deferred the consideratIon OT thiscase for wam of fuJi facts of the case and directec thmthis case ma; be placed in its next meeting atterobtaining full facts from the % Water Resources.

The Committee noted that Shri Awasthi \-\'asallocated to the State of Chhattisgarh under thecategory of "junior most" in the scale of Rs. 8000-275-J 3500 while he was drawing the scale of Rs. 6500-200-j 0500 on the cut off date viz. 23.09.2000. He wasgranted ACP in the fonner scale on 20.03.2001effective from 15.10.2000 and his allocation was not inaccordance with the guidelines of the allocatior •. Hewas to be allocated in the lower scale in which he yvassenior and eligible for allocation to the State ofMadhya Pradesh.

The representation of the petitioner was to bedisposed of within six months as per the directionsdated 22.03.2010 in \h..P. No. 2669/05 ofHon'b1e High i

Court of M.P. Therefore the Committee decided to :rectif~ the error in the allocation and to recommend there-allocation of the petitioner from the State ofChhattisgarh to Madhva Pradesh as per his entitlement.

Ansari. Sub-Engineer, WRDFileNo. ]4!J77/08-SR(S)

Rakesh Kumar Chaturvedi,Sub-Engineer, WRDFi]e No. ]4/164/09-SR(S)

S N Tiwari, LabTechnician,WRD

I ~han, Sub-Engineer,

File No. 14/25/] O-SR(S)

WA No.77//06

------------·----------~-~---1 "..'i

The Committee noted that Shri Ansari was f

allocated to the State of Chhatisgarh under the category Iof "junior most" in the scale of Rs. 8000-275- 1)500 iwhiie he was drawing the scale of Rs. 6500-200-10500 !on the cut off date viz. 23.09.2000. He was granted iACP in the former scale effective from 15.] 0.2000 and ihis allocation was not in accordance with the guidelines iof the allocation. He was to be allocated in the lower Iscale in which he was senior and eligible for allocation 1

to the State of Madhya Pradesh.

I The representation of the petitioner was to bedisposed of within six months as per the directionsdated 31.08.2009 in W.A. No. 777/06 of Hon'ble HighCourt of M.P. Therefore the Committee decided torectify the error in the allocation and recommend there-allocation of the petitioner from the State ofChhattis arh to Madhva Pradesh as er his eli ibilitv.

The Committee noted that Shri Chaturvedi wasallocated to the State of Chhattisgrh under the categoryof "junior most'· in the scale of Rs. 8000-275- ]3500while he was drawing the scale of Rs. 6500-200-10500on the cut off date viz. 23.09.2000. He was grantedACP in the former scale effective from 24.09.2000 andhis allocation was not in accordance with the guidelinesof the allocation. He was to be allocated in the lowerscale in which he was senior and eligib]e for allocationto the State of Madhya Pradesh.

The representation of the petitioner was to bedisposed of within six months as per the directionsdated 15.09.2009 in VI/.P. No. 2265/05 of Hon'ble HighCourt of M.P. Therefore the Committee decided torectify the error in the allocation and to recommend there-allocation of the petitioner from the State ofChhattis arh to Madhva Pradesh as er his eligibilitv.

I The representative of Department of Water IResources informed that this case was decided in the I

I last meeting, which is not correct. This case was i! considered by the Committee in its meeting held on Ii ,n.05.2010 and deferred. The Committee had desired iI that full facts aboul,'e'mployees junior to Shri Tiwari \

Iwere allocated to Chhattisgarh. may be obtained. This Icase is to be placed in its next meeting for deciding the I

I re-allocation of Shri Tiwari. 1I .I !

I The representative of Department of Water iI Resources informed that this case was decided in 14th I! meeting held on 03.09.20]0. which is not correct. i1 Consid~ration of this case was deferred and it was iI decided by the Committee that administrative I

M K Warbude. SHDO, DioHorticulture and FoodProcessingFile No. 14117/06-SRS

ii 3080/05

ii

14919/05t

; Depart;nenl would confirm the ~Iit\ of Shri KI;arl-!, ~. I. 1(, tht state or Madhya Pradesh under the categor) of,junior' most (/\-4) on the basis of his amendedseniorit) .

So. the Comminee decided to place this case in iTS

next meeting with categorical confirmation from theState Government regarding the eligibility of Shri 1

Khan for re-allocation to M.P. on the basis of his iamended seniority under categon A-4.•. '"r •

The representative of the Administrative Depn.informed in the meeting that the petitioner had filed a Iwrit petition in the Hon'ble High Court in 1987 for the:promotion in the grade of Senior Agriculture IDevelopment Officer as a result of bi-furcation of D/o I

. !Horticulture and Forestry from the Department of IAgriculture. He assured that the) would send the'factual position about the seniority of the petitioner and Ihis eligibility of re-allocation after review of his!seniority by the D.P.C. within two months.

The Administrative Department of the petitioner ihas recommended the re-allocation of the petltlOner ifrom Chhattisgarh to Madhya Pradesh consequent upon ithe amendment in the seniority at S1. No. 287 from S1. :No. 329 in the gradation list. On the recommendation iof the administrative Department of the petitioner. the .Committee decided to recommend the revision of stateallocation of the petitioner accordingly because 26Sub-Engineers junior to him have been allocated to theState of Madhya Pradesh .

! B K Yadav. Sub Engineer,PHEfile No.1 4/1 li1 O-SRS

. 2] . V K Sethi. Sub Engineer. PHE i 4287/05fiie No. 14/9iJ O-SR(S) On the recommendation of State Government. the

Committee decided to recommend the representation ofthe petitioner for acceptance for revision of his StateCadre from Chhattisgarh to M.P. on the ground that hiswife Sl11t.Neelam Sethi is working as Asstt. Teacher inGovernment Higher Secondary SchooL Jabalpur.Madhya Pradesh vi.e.f. 01.10.1994 as this case iscovered under the spouse policy.

>-1 --~-------------+-----~-----------------------<i "" • Damodar Mah~ian. Sub 147! /05,I •••••••.

! Engineer. PHEFile No. 14/75/2005-SRS

On the basis of comments of the administrativeDepartmen1 of the petitioner and the statement of therepresentative of the Department in the meeting thatrequest of the petitioner for change of allocation fromChhattisgarh to M.P. is not covered under theguidelines of allocation. The Committee. therefore.decided to recommend the representation of thepetitioner for rejection. The representative of theDepartment was advised to draft suitably the speaking,

Ravi Prakash Vajpayee, SubEngineer, PHEFile No. 14/57/20JO-SRS

P K Chaturvedi, Sub Engmeer, 2668/05PHEF.No. 14/208/05-SRS

M K SawaiDraughtsman(Civil). PWDFile No. 14/74109-SR(S)

Shailendra Kumar Sharma SubEngineer, PWDFile No. 14/35/07-SR(S)

order covering all the points raised in representation :I and submit the draft speaking order to this Department iI for issuing in compliance with the directions of the:

I,Hon'ble High Court dated 16.12.2005 in W.P. No. !

._I 47 I/O5., -I

On the basis of comments of the administrativeDepartment of the petitioner and the statement of therepresentative of the Department in the meeting thatrequest of the petitioner for change of allocation fromChhattisgarh to M.P. is not covered under theguidelines of allocation. The Committee, therefore.decided to recommend the representation of thepetitioner for rejection. The representative of theDepartment was advised to draft suitably the speakingorder covering all the points raised in representationand submit the draft speaking order to this Departmentfor issuing in compliance with the directions of theHon'ble High COllrt dated 12.04.2010 in W.P. No.2698/05.

On the basis of comments of the administrative IDepartment of the petitioner and the statement of therepresentative of the Department in the meeting thatrequest of the petitioner for change of allocation fromChhattisgarh to M.P. is not covered under theguidelines of allocation. The Committee. therefore,decided to recommend the representation of thepetitioner for rejection. The representative of theDepartment was advised to draft suitably the speakingorder covering all the points raised in representationand submit the draft speaking order to this Departmentfor issuing in compliance 'with the directions of theHon'ble High Court dated 22.03.2010 in W.P. No.2668/05.

On the basis of comments of the administrativeDepartment of the petitioner and the statement of therepresentative of the Department in the meeting thatrequest of the petitioner for change of allocation fromChhattisgarh to M.P. is not covered under theguidelines of allocation. The Committee, therefore.decided to recommend the representation of thepetitioner for rejection. The representative of theDepartment was advised to draft suitably the speakingorder covering all the points raised in representationand submit the draft speaking order to this Departmentfor issuing in compliance with the directions of theHon'ble High Court 21.08.2009 in W.P. No. 3206/09.

On the basis of comments of the administrativeDepartment of the petitioner and the statement of therepresentative of the Department in the meeting thatrequest of the petitioner for change of allocation from

------------------~----~---------_._-----------_.Chhattisgarh to M. f) is not covered undel theguideline:; of allocation. The Committee. therefore.

,decided to recommend the representation or the! petitioner for rejection. The representative of the

Department was advised to draft suitably the speakingorder covering all the points raised in representationand submit the drafi speaking order to this Departmem !for issuing in compliance with the directions of the:Hon'ble High Court 19.07.2006 in W.P. No. 9544/06. I

!Kishan Singh Rajput. Lecturer.Dio Tribai AffairsFile No. 14/J l2/07-SR(S)

Mahesh Kumar Pande) BDO.Dio Tribal WelfareF.No.14'54'10-SRS

Dr. Devendra Pratap SinghSengar. AMO, AYUSHFile No. 14/30107 -SRS

iiI 2991/06i

i 3793108!

I The representative of the Tribal Affairs informed iI the Committee that there was error in the allocation ofi lecturers in the scale of Rs. 550(;-175-9000 anel thei contention of the petitioner is tenable on the followingi two points:

(i I 'Names of two lecturers namely Kamal SinghFuleria and V.K. Prasad were not included inthe seniorit~ list while they were in StateGovernment service on the appointed day.

(ii) Shri Dhananjay Pawade and Anil KumarKasikar were in General categor) but the)were allocated in the SC category.

It was accepted by the State Government thatallocation of the petitioner to the State of Chhattisgarhwas erroneous and he was eligible for allocation to theState of Madhya Pradesh

On the basis of the comments of the StateGovernmem and statement of the representative of theTribal Affairs Deparrmem in the meeting. theCommittee accepted the representation of the petitionerand decided to recommend his allocation fromChhattisgarh to Madhya Pradesh.

I The representative of the Administrative, Department of the petitioner informed that the seniorit:

of the petitioner in the light of directions of Hon 'bleHigh Court is under consideration and consequent uponchange in seniority he is likely to be eligible for change

i of state cadre from Chhatisgarh to M.P. The! Committee decided that State Government should!i correct the seniority of the petitioner and thereafter:I send the proposal regarding eligibility of change of!! state cadre of the petitioner.ii On the basis of comments of the administrative

Department of the petitioner and the statemem of the: representative of the Department in the meeti n£.. thei requeST of the petitioner for change of allocation~ from I

! Chhanisgarh to M.P. is not covered under theguidelines of allocation. The Committee. therefore i

decided to recommend the representation of thepetitioner for rejection. The representative of the

! Department was advised to draft suitabl) the speakinL

Dr. L P Rai AMO, AYUSHFile No. 14/27107-SRS

Dr. G. S. Parihar, AMO,AYUSHFile No.J4/32/07-SRS

IiII Dr. Yagyapuma PathakI AMO, AYUSHI File No. 14/57/08-SRS

I

IIII Dr. Yishnudutta Mishra,I AMO,AYUSHI File No. J4/44/08-SRSI!

II order covering all the points raised in represemati~iand submit the draft speaking order to this Department I

! for issuing in compliance with the directions of the II Hon'ble High Court dated 28.4.2008 in W.P. NO'1I 3793/08. II ------------~i

I On the basis of comments of the administrative iDepartment of the petitioner and the statement of the irepresentative of the Department in the meeting. the Irequest of the petitioner for change of allocation from IChhattisgarh to M.P. is not covered under the Iguidelines of allocation. The Committee, therefore. Idecided to recommend the representation of the Ipetitioner for rejection. The representative of the IDepartment was advised to draft suitably the speaking Iorder covering all the points raised in representation Iand submit the draft speaking order to this Department I

for issuing in compliance with the directions of the iHon'ble High Court dated 28.4.2008 in W.P. No.3791/08.

On the basis of comments of the administrativeDepartment of the petitioner and the statement of therepresentative of the Department in the meeting. therequest of the petitioner for change of allocation fromChhattisgarh to M.P. is not covered under theguidelines of allocation. The Committee. therefore.decided to recommend the representation of thepetitioner for rejection. The representative of theDepartment was advised to draft suitably the speakingorder covering all the points raised in representationand submit the draft speaking order to this Department

: for issuing in compliance with the directions of the! Hon'ble High COLlrt dated 28.4.2008 in W.P. No.. ~! 3792/08.iII On the basis of comments of the administrativet Department of the petitioner and the statement of theI representative of the Department in the meeting, theI request of the petitioner for change of allocation from

I· Chhattisgarh to M.P. is not covered under theguidelines of allocatlOn. The CommIttee. therefore.

II decided to recommend the representation of theI petitioner for rejection. The representative of theI Department was advised to draft suitably the speakingJ order covering all the points raised in representation

Iand submit the draft speaking order to this Department

! for issuing in compliance with the directions of thei Hon'ble High Court dated 21.7.2007 in W.P. No.

11473/07.!I On the basis of comments of the administrativeI Department of the petitioner and the statemeni of thei representative of the Department in the meeting. the

34 ! Dr. Kedamath Mishra. AMO. 1037/06AYUSHFile No. 14/40/08-SRS

i 35 . Dr. Harinarayan Shukla; AMO.AYUSH

File No.14:34'1 O-SRS

! 36 Dr. K.K. Jain. MedicalOfficer. D/0 Pubiic HealthFile No. 14/31/08-SR(Sl

; VIPreference

-------------------'----requesl of the petitioner for change of allocation homChhanisgarh to MY is not covered under theguidelines of allocation. The Committee:. there1ore.decided to recommend the representation of thepetitioner tor rejection. The representative of theDepartment was advised to draft suitably the speaKingorder covering all the points raised in representationand submit the draft speaking order to this Department Ifor issuing in compliance with the directions of the iHon'ble f-ligh Court dated 01.02.2006 in ,\\'.P. No. I549/06 and c.P. No. 826/07. I

IOn the basis of comments of the administrative i

Department of the petitioner and the statement of the 'I'

representative of the Department in the meeting. the I

request of the petitioner for change of allocation from IChhattisgarh to M.P. is not covered uncler the!guidelines of allocation. The Committee. therefore. idecided to recommend the representation of the ipetitioner for rejection. The representative of the IDepartment was advised to draft suitably the speaking I

order covering a11 the points raised in representation !and submit the draft speaking order to this Department ifor issuing in compliance with the directions of the I

Hon'ble High Court dated 01.02.2006 in W.P. No.1037/06.

The Committee deferred the consideration of thiscase because the wife of the petitioner is an Assistantteacher. a non-state cadre employee but her serviceparticulars have not been made available by theAdministrative Department of the petitioner. TheComminee decided thm this case ma) be placec in itsnext meeting after obtaining service particularsparticularly the date of appointment of the '""ife of thepetitioner. from her Administrative Department.

The representative of Publ ic Health Departmentbrought a copy of the earlier comlTlunication which wasnot sufficient to decide the case of Dr. Jain for re-allocation. It was noticed that he could n01 explain thecase in the meeting. Therefore. the Committee decidedto defer the consideration of this case. The Committeewas not happy with the manner in which the allocationmaners are dealt with by D/o P .H. & r.w. This case ispending for more than two years for want of simpleclarification on the following points:(i) Th.e scale being drawn by Dr. Jain on the

appointed day.(i i) How he was allocated to the State of

Chhattisgarh in two scales i.e. Rs.8000-275-13500 and RS.l 0000-325-15200:

(iii) The actual scale of pa) for considering hisallocation.

(i

37 ! Dr. R. K. AggrawalI Veterinary Asstt. SurgeonI File No. 14/96/09-SR(S)

Radhey Lal Nirmalkar Asstt.Grade Ill, Department ofSocial JusticeFile No. 14/5/09-SR(S)

VIPI reference

A. K. Sahu, RAEo, Dept!. of 2395/08AgricultureFile No. 14/178/08-SR(S)

So, the Committee decided that matter may be i ,.'taken up a1 the level of the Princlpal Secretary for igetting necessary clarifications for deciding the re- jallocation of Dr . .fain and giving reply to the VIP:reference. -:

!II

The Committee decided to recommend the Irepresentation of Dr. Aggarwal for rejection as the igrounds raised by him in his representation do not Ientitle him for re-allocation to the state of Madhya II'

Pradesh as per guidel ines of allocation.

The Administrative Department of ShriNirmalkar informed that he was an employee of OfficeSuperintendent, Bahu Viklang Grih, Raipur.Chhattisgarh since 1992 and confirmed that this casedoes not fall within the category of State cadreallocation because he belongs to district level cadre. Asper policy, the non-state cadre employees standallocated to the state where they were working as onthe appointed date. As such. his allocation is inaccordance with the guidelines of the allocation. The ICommittee noted that matters pertaining to District I'

cadre employee are outside the purview of the ICommittee.

The Committee earlier considered this case in its I8th meeting held on 05.09.2008 and rejected. While!issuing speaking order in compliance with thedirections dated 01.05.2008 of Hon'ble High Court ofChhattisgarh in W.P. No. 2395/08 it was noted that hisjuniors have been allocated to the State of MadhyaPradesh in lower pay scale Rs. 4000-100-6000 becausehis juniors got ACP retrospectively after thepub1ication of TF AL and the petitioner was allocated tothe State of Chhattisgarh in the higher scale of Rs.4500-7000. This case is similar to the case of Shri R.S.Chaurasia, H.o. Srivastava and G.R. Verma in W.A.No. 783/07, 784/07 & 785/07 and they were givenrelief by the Hon"ble High Court of M.P. on13.08.2008 by quashing their allocation to the State ofChhattisgarh and also quashing the circular date26. J 2.200 I issued by the State Government.

The Committee decided not to apply the decisionof the Hon'ble High Court dated 13.08.2008 deliveredin the above writ appeals in other cases till there is nospecific order of the Court for giving relief to thepetitioner who was allocated to the State ofChhattlsgarh. Smce the case IS sllnJlar to the casesmentioned at SI. No. 41 to 46, final order may beissued after policy matter is sorted out by Govt. of M.P.

The COll1mitlee noted that Dio Agricultureinfl)f\necl that employees juniors to the petitioner havebeen allocated to the State of Madhya Pradesh in thehigher pay scale RsAOOO-6000 because his juniors gOIACP before the publication ofTFAL and the petitionerwas allocated to the State of Chhattisgarh in the lowerscale of Rs, 3500-5200 because he got the ACP orderon 29.08.2002 i.e, after the publication of TFAL buteffective from 19.04,1999. The Committee was notconvinced with the Comments of State Governmentthat petitioner was allocated to State of Chhattisgarh inlower scale while his juniors were allocated to M.P. inhigher scale. The Committee decided to defer theconsideration of this case and directed to explain as tohow the employees in lower scale were allocated toChhattisgarh and junior employees allocated to M.P. inhigher scale,

employees to the state of M.P. and senior employee:, to: ""the state of Chhatisgarh against their option because of !circular dated 26.12.200 I issued bv State Governmem. iwas challenged bv the three RAEOs namelv Shri R.S iChaursia, Shri H. ·0. Srivastava and Shri G.R. Verma in iWrit Appeal No. 783/07. 784/07 and 785/07 in Hon 'ble iHigh Court of M.P. While deciding the said appeab the iHon'ble Court opined on 13/08/2008 that State wcre !not justifying in carving a separate rule by introducing Ia new cut off date vide the order dated 26/ J 21200 I and Ithus Central Government was not justified in treating !such persons who were otherwise covered by Clause i6(5) to be separate than those who formed part of group iconstituted under clause 6(4). The Court quashed the Iorder of allocation of the appellants to the state of IChhattisgarh and respondents were directed to retain Ithe appellants to the state of M.P. Against the said Ijudgement dated J 3/8/2008 the Review Petition filed Iby the State Government has been dismissed by the Ii

Hon'ble High Court. The MP State Government hastaken a deZision after seeking legal opinion for not t

filing SLP in the Hon'ble Supreme Court against the II

said judgement of Hon'ble High Court of MP. Thedecision of the Hon'ble High Court in the said Writ iAppeals has been implemented by allocating the Iappellants to the state of Madhya Pradesh. '

I

The SAC in its meeting on 05.07.2010 while Iconsidering the case of Bansilal Unihale, RAEO Idecided to re-consider his eligibility in the wake of idecision of M.P. High Court in Writ Appea] No. I783/07. 784/07 and 785/07 in the matter of Shri IR.s.Chaursia, Shri H.O. Srivastava and Shri G.R. IVerma. Accordingly in such cases the Department of iAgriculture was requested to furnish the proposals iwhere compliance of directions of High Court is ipending. So the Department of Agriculture has!forwarded the proposals in all five cases on the lines of Ijudgement dated 13/8/2008 of Hon 'ble High Court of IM.P. !

IThe Committee wanted to know the impact of I

the implementation of judgement dated 13/8/2008. It !was decided that General Administration Department Iand Department of Agriculture will examine the Iimplication in various cases after seeking legal opinion Iin the matter. Deputy Secretary (SR). member of the ICommittee will also be associated during discussion onthe policy issue involved in the matter. The exercise Ineeds to be completed before the next meeting. The ICommittee was also of the opinion that if there is a II

specific order of the Court in anv Writ Petition. suchcases will be placed before it for consideration and !decision. i

~_.~ ...

4(, Ratan Lal Thakre. RAEO.Depn of AE,rriculture

Banshi Lal Unhale. RAEO,Depn. of AgricultureF No. 14/59/09-SRS

The petitioner belongs to non-state cadre ane! he iwas working in Chhattisgarh as on 01.1 1.200CJ. As per:poi icy the non-state cadre employees stane! allocatee! te .the state where they were working as on the appointee! ;date As such his allocation is in accordance with theguidelines of the allocation. Hence no further action ;was considerecl necessary b) the Committee on the \representation of the petitioner.

2033/08 iThe petitioner belongs to non-state cadre and he !

was working in Chhattisgarh as on 0] .11.2000. As per Ipolic) the non-state cadre employees stand allocated to ithe state where the) were working as on the appointed idate. As such his allocation is in accordance with the iguidelines of the allocation. Hence no further actionwas considered necessary by the Committee on therepresentation of the petitioner.

48 Dhal Singh Bisen, RevenueI

. Inspector, Revenue and LandI

. Records! F. No. I4/94/08-SRS

The petltloner belongs to non-state cadre and hewas working in Chhattisgarh as on 01.1 1.2000. theappointed day. As per state Government policy thenon-state cadre employees stand allocated to the statewhere they were working as on the appointed date. Assllch his allocation is in accordance with the guidelinesof the allocation. Hence no further action was

,considered necessar) by the Committee on the. representation of the petitioner.

Ramshekhar Katiyar. RAEO.Deptt. of Agriculture These cases were considered iI', the last meeting of

the Committee held on 03/09 '20 1(! anC: it was decidedthat Dio Agriculture VIi]] issue a letter 10 them for

>-- ' submitting their representations withip. one month50 Tarun Kumar Dwivedi. RAEO. 2024/08 'failing which it would be construed that they have

Deptt. of Agriculture nothing to say and matter would be disposed offaccordingly.

Now the Dio agriculture has informed that the)3800/08 ; have not submitted their representations so far. So the

i Committee decided to take these cases disposed of in2024/08 i the absence of pressing their grievances in the light of

directions of Chhatcisgarh High Court in the WritPetitions filed by them.

Ramvilas Sharma. RAEO.; Deptt. of Agriculture

R A Sharma. RAEO. Deptt. of, Agriculture

Ram Narayan Rathore. Asstt.Grade-Ill, Commercial TaxDepartment

Shri S.c. Pande\, Asstt. Commissioner attended the! meeting to explai~ the case of Shri Ram Narayan. Rathore. Asstt. Grade-lll. He could not convince theI Committee about the cadre of Shri Rathore. whether! state cadre of non-state cadre. Moreover, cadre of Shri

Rathore is not clear from the comments forwarded bythe D/o Commercial Tax. M.P. to this Department sofar.

The Committee decided to defer the considerationof this case and decided that State Government wouldfurnish the full facts about the cadre of Shri Rathoreand also his entitle~enl for the successor State on thebasis of option, domicile and seniority rank as on thea 'ointed day.

The Chairman desired that the State Government authorities should respond timely to the request ofCentral Government for furnishing facts for deciding various representations of the petitioners in pursuance ofdirections of Hon'ble High Courts. It has been noticed that officers well versed with the cases are not deputedto attend the meeting which result in deferment of the cases. The Committee, therefore, decided that StateGovernment authorities will furnish their agenda with full facts of the case to the General AdministrationDepartment well in time who in turn will submit the same to the Department of Personnel and Training at leasttwo days in advance of the meeting.

************