Minutes of $13^{\text {th }}$ Meeting of the State Advisory Committee, Madhya Pradesh held on

07.05.2010 at New Delhi

In compliance with the directions dated 17.04.2007 of the Hon`ble High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur in Writ Petition No. 445/2007 in the matter of Godbole and others versus Union of India and others, the $13^{\text {th }}$ meeting the Committee was held under the Chairmanship of Shri Rajeev Kapoor, Joint Secretary (A. AT\&SR) DOPT at 11.00 A.M. in Room No.190, North Block, New Delhi on 07.05.2010. The meeting was attended by the following:-

Smt. Vijaya Srivastava Smt. Nidhi Chhiber Shri V. Peddanna Shri M.L. Jain Shri O.P. Gupta

Principal Secretary, GAD, Govt. of M.P. Secretary, GAD, Govt. of Chhattisgarh Deputy Secretary, DoPT (SRS) Deputy Director, Department of Agriculture, M.P. SAO, O/o E-in-C, Department of Water Resources, M.P. 2. The Chairman welcomed the members of the Committee and thereafter took up the agenda of the meeting for discussion. In the meeting representations of State Government employees of erstwhile State of Madhya Pradesh, covered by the decision dated 17.04.2007 in W.P. No. 445/2001, were individually discussed for revision of their allocation of State Cadre. The brief record of discussion and recommendation of the committee in each case has been reflected in the last column of the table:-

| Sl.
No. | Name of the
Petitioner | W. P.
No. | Recommendation |
| — | — | — | — |
| 1. | Sh. Ratan Lal
Thakre, RAEO,
D/o Agriculture,
M.P. | $3177 / 08$ | The Committee noted that the petitioner did not specify
any reason for change of State allocation from
Chhattisgarh to M.P. in compliance with the directions of
Hon`ble High Court, the Committee decided that D/o
Agriculture, M.P. will furnish the facts whether his
juniors have been allocated to Madhya Pradesh under the
category of A-4 (junior) before deciding his
representation. His representation, if received, by any of
the successor states may also be forwarded for decision. || 2. | Sh. Bansilal
Unhale,
RAEO, D/o
Agriculture, M.P. | $2633 / 08$ | The Committee noted that the grounds like option for M.P., illness of wife and self and death of parents do not form the basis of re-allocation of State cadre of the petitioner. It was decided to re-consider the eligibility of the petitioner in the wake of decision of M.P. High Court in W.A.s No. 783/07, 784/07 \& 785/07 in the matter of Shri R.S. Chaurasia, H.O. Srivastava \& G.R. Verma. On receipt of comments of D/o Agriculture, M.P., his representation will be decided in the next meeting? |
| :–: | :–: | :–: | :–: |
| 3. | Sh. Jagendra
Singh Chauhan,
APC, D/o Home | $3186 / 08$ | The petitioner is a non-state cadre employee. As per guidelines non- state cadre employees stand allocated to the State where they were working as on the appointed day viz. 01.11.2000. The petitioner was working in Chhattisgarh at the time of allocation, hence his representation recommended for rejection by the Committee. |
| 4. | Sh. Shiv Kumar Pathak, Section Commander, D/o Home | $1324 / 08$ | The petitioner is a non-state cadre employee. As per guidelines non- state cadre employees stand allocated to the State where they were working as on the appointed day viz. 01.11.2000. The petitioner was working in Chhattisgarh at the time of allocation, hence his representation recommended for rejection by the Committee. |
| 5. | Sh. Vishwajit
Yogi, Sub-
Engineer, D/o
Water Resources | $3179 / 08$ | The Committee noted that the petitioner has not given any reasons for revision of State cadre in his representation. Hence Committee decided to recommend his representation for rejection. |
| 6. | Sh. Mohd. Shafi
Nagori, Sub-
Engineer, D/o
Water Resources | $3176 / 08$ | The representative of the Water Resources informed that the representation of the petitioner was considered in 2005 by the State Advisory Committee and rejected. The Committee noted that the petitioner has given no fresh grounds which warrant revision of his State cadre, as per the existing guidelines of allocation. Hence the Committee recommended the representation for rejection. |
| 7. | Sh. Keshav Kant Chaukse, Sub-
Engineer, D/o
Water Resources | $3179 / 08$ | The representative of the Water Resources informed that the representation of the petitioner was considered in 2005 by the State Advisory Committee and rejected. The Committee noted that the petitioner has given no fresh grounds which warrant revision of his State cadre, as per the existing guidelines of allocation. Hence the Committee recommended the representation for rejection. |

Shri Kaloo Ram Ladia, Sub-Engineer, D/o Water Resources

The representation of Shri Kaloo Ram Ladia, on the recommendation of his Administrative Department, was considered by the Committee considering the Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya, in which Smt. Pushpa Ladia, wife of Shri Ladia is working as TGT since 13.01.1997. The Committee has no objection if the Chhattisgarh Government concurs in the re-allocation of Shri Ladia from Chhattisgarh to Madhya Pradesh under the spouse policy. Govt. of M.P. will decide the representation of Shri Ladia under spouse policy in consultation with the Chhattisgarh Govt. and inform this Department with reference to decision of the Committee.

Shri Altaf Ahmad Ansari, Sub-Engineer D/o Water Resources

The Committee noted that claim of the petitioner for his eligibility to the State of Madhya Pradesh appears to be justified in the scale of Rs. 6500-200-10500 if he was not given the ACP in the next higher scale of Rs. 8000-250-13500 as on 23.09.2000, as per the guidelines dated 22.03.2001 issued by the Madhya Pradesh Govt. The Committee decided that the State Administrative Department would verify the facts about the grant of ACP and its effective date with supporting documents to enable this Department to decide the representation of the petitioner in compliance with the directions dated 31.08.2009 passed in W. A. No. 777/2006.

1. The Committee decided to hold its next in the last week of June, 2010.

2. The meeting ended with a vote of thanks to chair.

mahadansari