This document details the minutes of the 23rd State Advisory Committee meeting held on September 20, 2013. The committee, chaired by Shri Manoj Joshi, Joint Secretary (AT & A & SR), convened to consider representations from State Government employees regarding allocation/re-allocation decisions, often in response to High Court directives or concerning SC/ST categories and spouse policies. The meeting addressed 109 cases, with individual recommendations ranging from revising allocations, deferring decisions for further verification, to rejecting representations based on existing guidelines or lack of supporting evidence. Various government departments were involved in providing comments and reports for these cases.
SOURCE PDF LINK :
Click to view full document content
F. No. 14/03/2012-SR(S) Vol.-IV
Government of India
Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions
(Department of Personnel \& Training)
$3^{\text {rd }}$ Floor, Lok Nayak Bhawan
Khan Market, New Delhi-110003, Dated, the $15^{\text {th }}$ October, 2013
To
The Principal Secretary, General Administration Department, Government of Madhya Pradesh, Vallabh Bhawan, Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh-462004
Subject: Minutes of the $23^{\text {rd }}$ meeting of the State Advisory Committee held on $20^{\text {th }}$ September, 2013 at 11.30 A.M. in Room No. 315, Vallabh Bhawan, Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh under the Chairmanship of Shri Manoj Joshi, Joint Secretary (AT \& A \& SR).
Sir,
I am directed to forward herewith a copy of the minutes of the 23rd meeting of the State Advisory Committee held under the Chairmanship of Shri Manoj Joshi, Joint Secretary (AT \& A \& SR) on $20^{\text {th }}$ September, 2013 at 11.30 A.M. in Room No. 315, Vallabh Bhawan, Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh for consideration of the representations of State Government employees in compliance with the directions given by the Hon’ble High Court of M.P. and Chhattisgarh and other representations of employees under SC/ST category, spouse policy, etc. The orders for revision of allocation/rejection of representations would be issued separately by the Government of India.
Yours faithfully,
Encls: As mentioned above.
(A.K. Malhotra)
Under Secretary to the Govt. of India
Tel. No: 011-24651898
Copy to:
The Principal Secretaries:
- D/o General Administration, Govt. of Chhattisgarh, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur, Chhattisgarh492001.
- D/o Water Resources, Govt. of M.P., Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh.
- D/o Water Resources, Govt. of Chhattisgarh, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
- D/o Farmers’ Welfare \& Agriculture Development, Govt. of M.P., Bhopal, M.P.
- D/o Agriculture, Govt. of Chhattisgarh, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
- D/o Horticulture, Govt. of M.P., Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh.
- D/o Horticulture, Govt. of Chhattisgarh, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
- D/o Public Health \& Family Welfare, Govt. of M.P., Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh.
- D/o Public Health \& Family Welfare, Govt. of Chhattisgarh, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
- D/o Ayush, Govt. of M.P., Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh.
- D/o Ayush, Govt. of Chhattisgarh, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
- D/o Public Works, Govt. of M.P., Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh.
- D/o Public Works, Govt. of Chhattisgarh, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
- D/o Home, Govt. of M.P., Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh.
- D/o Home, Govt. of Chhattisgarh, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
- D/o Animal Husbandry, Govt. of M.P., Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh.
- D/o Animal Husbandry, Govt. of Chhattisgarh, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
- D/o School Education, Govt. of M.P., Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh.
- D/o School Education, Govt. of Chhattisgarh, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
- D/o Technical Education, Govt. of M.P., Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh.
- D/o Technical Education, Govt. of Chhattisgarh, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
- D/o Fisheries, Govt. of M.P., Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh.
- D/o Fisheries, Govt. of Chhattisgarh, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
- D/o Social Welfare, Govt. of M.P., Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh.
- D/o Social Welfare, Govt. of Chhattisgarh, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
- D/o Housing \& Environment, Govt. of M.P., Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh.
- D/o Housing \& Environment, Govt. of Chhattisgarh, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
- D/o Public Health Engineering, Govt. of M.P., Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh.
- D/o Public Health Engineering, Govt. of Chhattisgarh, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
- D/o Commerce \& Industry, Govt. of M.P., Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh.
- D/o Commerce \& Industry, Govt. of Chhattisgarh, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
- D/o Tribal \& Schedule Caste Development, Govt. of M.P., Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh.
- D/o Tribal \& Schedule Caste Development, Govt. of Chhattisgarh, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
- D/o Employment \& Training, Govt. of M.P., Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh.
- D/o Employment \& Training, Govt. of Chhattisgarh, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
- D/o Rural Industries, Govt. of M.P., Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh.
- D/o Rural Industries, Govt. of Chhattisgarh, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
- D/o Food \& Civil Supplies, Govt. of M.P., Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh.
- D/o Food \& Civil Supplies, Govt. of Chhattisgarh, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
- D/o Rural Development, Govt. of M.P., Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh.
- D/o Rural Development, Govt. of Chhattisgarh, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
- D/o Revenue, Govt. of M.P., Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh.
- D/o Revenue, Govt. of Chhattisgarh, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
Copy also to:
- PS to JS (AT \& A \& SR)
- PS to Director (CRD/SR)
(A.K. Malhotra)
Under Secretary to the Govt. of India
Tel. No: 011-24651898
Minutes of the $23^{\text {rd }}$ Meeting of State Advisory Committee, Madhya Pradesh held on $20^{\text {th }}$ September, 2013 at 11.30 A.M. in Room No. 315, Vallabh Bhawan, Bhopal under the Chairmanship of JS (AT\&A).
In compliance with the directions of respective High Courts of Madhya Pradesh and Chhattisgarh, $23^{\text {rd }}$ Meeting of the State Advisory Committee was convened at Bhopal at 11.30 AM on 20/09/13, under the Chairmanship of Shri Manoj Joshi, Joint Secretary (AT \& A), DOPT, to consider the representations of the petitioners/employees of Madhya Pradesh as well as Chhattisgarh. The list of attendees is enclosed at Annexure “A”.
2. Shri K. Suresh, Principal Secretary, GAD, Govt of M.P., Member Secretary, SAC, welcomed the Chairman and other members of the Committee and thereafter, with the permission of the Chair, took up the agenda of the meeting for discussion. The Committee considered 109 cases in all and decision of the Committee in each individual case has been reflected in the last column of the table below:
| Sl. No. |
Name, Designation \& W.P./Writ Appeal No. | Recommendations of the Committee |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Shri Kamal Singh Sisodia, Sub- Engineer, WRD (W.P. No. 2763/06) | Their request is covered under the guidelines of allocation for SC/ST employees. The Committee recommended to revise their allocation from Chhattisgarh to Madhya Pradesh as they belong to SC category and are domicile/optee of Madhya Pradesh. |
| 2 | Shri Roop Basant Jharwade, Sub- Engineer, WRD (W. P. No. 2420/08) |
|
| 3 | Shri Ravindra Singh Parihar, Sub-Engineer, WRD (Writ Appeal No. 413/2011) | In compliance with the directions dated 13.03.12 of High Court of M.P., the representation of petitioner was considered by the Committee in the light of the comments received from the Administrative Department of the petitioner. The Administrative Department, having re-examined the representation, admitted that Shri Parihar’s juniors viz. Shri Rakesh Kumar Jain, Shri Vijay Kumar, Shri Satyanarayan Srivastava, Shri Kailash Narayan Raghuvanshi, Shri S K Soni, Shri Sridhar Chokse, Shri Shyam Lal Soni, Shri Prabhu Lal Kumar \& Shri Pradeep Kumar Vaidya were given higher pay scale, under ACP scheme, with retrospective effect, i.e. effective before 23.09 .2000 , but were allocated to Madhya Pradesh in lower pay scale. The Committee considered these facts and decided to recommend revision of allocation of the petitioner from Chhattisgarh to Madhya Pradesh on the ground that his juniors were allocated to Madhya Pradesh under similar conditions in which the allocation of petitioner took place. |
| 4 | Shri Narendra Singh Yadav, Sub-Engineer, WRD (Writ Appeal No. $358 / 2011$ ) | In compliance with the directions dated 13.03 .12 of High Court of M.P., the representation of petitioner was considered by the Committee. However, a decision on the representation had to be deferred as the |
| representative of Department of Water Resources informed that the claim of petitioner is yet to be checked and verified. The Committee, therefore, decided to defer the matter and desired that detailed comments/report on allocation of his juniors be compiled by the administrative Department and placed before the Committee in its next meeting. | ||
|---|---|---|
| 5 | Shri Rajendra Singh Bhadoria, Tracer, WRD (Writ Appeal No. 423 /2011) | In compliance with the directions dated 13.03.12 of High Court of M.P., the representation of the petitioner was considered by the Committee in the light of the comments received from the Administrative Department of the petitioner. The Administrative Department, after having re-examined the representation, admitted that his juniors viz. Shri V K Patel, Shri R R Date, Shri Vikas Kundle, Shri S K Upadhayay \& Shri J P Namdev were given higher pay scale of Rs.3500-5200, under ACP scheme, wef 19.04.99, but were allocated to M.P. in lower pay scale of Rs.3050-4590. The Committee considered these facts and recommended revision of allocation of the petitioner from Chhattisgarh to Madhya Pradesh on the ground that his juniors were allocated to Madhya Pradesh under similar conditions in which the allocation of petitioner took place. |
| 6 | Shri Rakesh Kumar Srivastava, Assistant Engineer, WRD (W.P.No.837/2012) |
The representations of the petitioners were considered by the Committee in the light of the comments received from the Administrative Department of the petitioner. The Administrative Department, after having re-examined the |
| 7 | Shri P N Sharma, Assistant Engineer, WRD (W.P.No.837/2012) |
representations, admitted that 25 Assistant Engineers, junior to the petitioners, were given higher pay scale of Rs.10000-15200, under ACP scheme, wef 14.05.99, but were allocated to M.P. in lower pay scale of Rs.8000-13500. The Committee considered these facts and recommended for revision of allocation of the petitioners from Chhattisgarh to Madhya Pradesh on the ground that their juniors were allocated to Madhya Pradesh under similar conditions in which the allocation of petitioner took place. |
| 8 | Shri Manoj Kumar Kalosiya, Sub-Engineer, WRD (W.P. No. 15011/06) |
The representation of the petitioner was considered by the Committee. However, the representatives of Department of Water Resources as well as Department of General Administration informed that it could not be confirmed whether the petitioner is still in service or has expired. Besides, Caste certificate of the petitioner was also not available with the Administrative Department. The Committee, accordingly, decided to defer the matter and desired that the factual |
| position be verified and placed before the Committee in its next meeting. The Committee also desired that a copy of judgement/order passed in W.P. No.15011/06, if any, be also produced before it in its next meeting. |
||
|---|---|---|
| 9 | Shri Suresh Chandra Sharma, Sub-Engineer, WRD (Writ Appeal No. 220/ 2011) |
The Committee was apprised by the Administrative Department that an appeal has been filed in the Court which is pending. The Committee, therefore, decided to defer the matter till disposal of the appeal filed in the Hon’ble High Court. |
| 10 | Shri Vishwanath Bansal, Sub-Engineer, WRD, (Writ Appeal No. 457/2011) |
In compliance with the directions dated 13.03.12, passed by the Hon’ble High Court of M.P., the representation of the petitioner was considered by the Committee in light of the comments received from the Administrative Department. It was contended by the Administrative Department that his juniors Shri Dilip Sharma and Shri Rajesh Chaturvedi were allocated to Madhya Pradesh on mutual transfer and not on the basis of seniority. Shri R K Sharma was finally allocated to Chhattisgarh. As regards Shri Rakesh Kumar Jain, Shri Vijay Kumar, Shri Satyanarayan Srivastava, Shri Kailash Narayan Raghuvanshi, Shri S K Soni, Shri Sridhar Chokse, Shri Shyam Lal Soni, Shri Prabhu Lal Kumar and Shri Pradeep Kumar Vaidya, it was intimated that they are senior to the petitioner. Since the grounds raised by the petitioner did not turn out to be valid, the Administrative Department requested for rejection of his request. The Committee took note of the facts as explained by the Administrative Department and recommended to reject the representation of the petitioner as none of the grounds raised by him in his representation is covered under the existing guidelines of allocation. A detailed speaking order shall be issued. |
| 11 | Shri Subhash Chandra Gupta, Asstt. Engineer, WRD, (W.Appeal No. 398/ 2011) |
In compliance with directions dated 13.03 .12 of the Hon’ble High Court of M.P., the representation of petitioner was considered by the Committee. He has raised the ground of mental illness of his father but no medical certificate was furnished by the petitioner in support of his claim. As regards allocation of his juniors to M.P., it was contended that Shri J K Oswal and Shri A C Patidar were allocated to Madhya Pradesh on mutual transfer and Shri A Haq was allocated to M.P. on the ground of mental illness of his wife. However, Shri Bhag Chand Jain was allocated to M.P. by placing him at Sl. No. 2822A in TFAL. His seniority rank was changed from 2822A to 3071A, while seniority rank of Shri Gupta is 3064A. This was placed before the then allocation Committee headed by Shri Lohani. Lohani Committee decided that allocation |
| of Shri Bhagchand Jain need not be changed. The Committee, after perusing the facts explained by the Administrative Department as well as Department of General Administration, viewed that decision of the Lohani Committee, not to change allocation of Shri Bhagchand Jain, was not in order. Therefore, the Committee recommended to correct the allocation of Shri Bhagchand Jain by revising his allocation from M.P. to Chhattisgarh. Since after revising allocation of Shri Jain to Chhattisgarh, the ground raised by Shri Gupta would no longer sustain, the Committee recommended to reject his representation for revision of his allocation from Chhattisgarh to M.P. A detailed speaking order shall be issued. | ||
| 12 | Shri Bindeshwari Singh, Sub-Engineer, WRD, (W.P. No. 6288/2006) | In compliance with the directions dated 28.02.12 of High Court of M.P., the representation of petitioner was considered by the Committee in the light of the comments received from the Administrative Department of the petitioner. The Administrative Department, after having re-examined the representation, admitted that a number of Sub-Engineers, junior to the petitioner, were given higher pay scale of Rs.8000-13500, under ACP scheme, with retrospective effect i.e. effective before 23.09.2000, but were allocated to M.P. in lower pay scale of Rs.6500-10500. The Committee considered these facts and recommended revision of allocation of the petitioner from Chhattisgarh to Madhya Pradesh on the ground that his juniors were allocated to M.P. under similar conditions in which the allocation of petitioner took place. |
| 13 | Shri Kailash Chandra Gupta, Sub-Engineer, WRD, (W.P. No. 5174/2006) | In compliance with directions dated 21.11.11 of the Hon’ble High Court of M.P., the representation dated 24.08.12 submitted by Shri Gupta was considered by the Committee in the light of the comments received from his Administrative Department. He has raised the ground of his option to M.P., allocation of his juniors to M.P. and disability of his mother. Administrative Department of Shri Gupta contended that he was allocated to Chhattisgarh under A-4 category i.e. being junior. It was further contended that he has not named any persons junior to him who have been allocated to M.P. Besides, guidelines for medical hardship do not cover disability of kins of the employees. In view of the above facts, the Administrative Department contended that Shri Gupta has not furthered any valid grounds for consideration of his representation. The Committee considered the representation of Shri Gupta in the light of the facts furnished by the |
| Administrative Department and recommended to reject his representation as none of the grounds raised by him in his representation is covered under the existing guidelines of allocation. A detailed speaking order shall be issued. | ||
|---|---|---|
| 14 | Shri Kamleshwar Lal Sinha, Sub-Engineer, WRD (W. P. 5327/10) |
In compliance with directions dated 14.02.13 of Hon’ble High Court of Chhattisgarh, the representation of the petitioner was considered by the Committee. It was noted that the petitioner is domicile of Chhattisgarh and had also opted for Chhattisgarh. He was allocated to M.P. as his domicile was erroneously recorded as Rewa, M.P. Administrative Department of the petitioner confirmed that his domicile is Raipur, Chhattisgarh. Taking note of the above facts, the Committee recommended to revise the allocation of the petitioner from Madhya Pradesh to Chhattisgarh. |
| 15 | Shri A K Gupta, SubEngineer, WRD (W.P. No. 5729/06) | In compliance with directions dated 15.11.11 of Hon’ble High Court of M.P., the Committee considered the representation of the petitioner the Administrative Department informed that the facts with regard to allocation of petitioner’s juniors to M.P. could not be verified/checked. The Committee, accordingly, decided to defer the matter and desired that the position be verified and detailed comments/report be placed before it in its next meeting. |
| 16 | Shri J P Pateria, SubEngineer, WRD (Representation) | Shri Pateria, allocated to M.P., represented that his allocation be revised under spouse policy as his wife is working in Chhattisgarh. As the Committee took the representation for consideration, Administrative Department of the representationist informed that he has withdrawn his representation and does not want his allocation to be revised. Taking note of the present circumstances, the Committee dropped the case. |
| 17 | Shri Satish Kumar Vyas, Asstt. Engineer, WRD (Representation) |
The Committee considered the representation of Shri Vyas in the light of the comments received from the Administrative Department. Shri Vyas has contended that his seniority has changed in view of which he has become senior and therefore, requested that his allocation be revised from Chhattisgarh to M.P. accordingly. Administrative Department of Shri Vyas agreed with his contentions. The Committee took note of the facts explained by the Administrative Department and recommended to revise the allocation of Shri Satish Kumar Vyas from Chhattisgarh to M.P. |
| 18 | Shri Rajesh Kumar Pachouri, Sub-Engineer, WRD (Representation) | The Committee considered the representation of Shri Pachouri in the light of the comments received from the Administrative Department. Shri Pachouri has contended that his wife Smt. Chandralekha is working in Govt schools in M.P. since 31.07.85 and presently posted in Girls Higher Secondary School in District Hoshangabad, M.P. and therefore, requested for revising his allocation from Chhattisgarh to M.P. under spouse policy. Administrative Department of Shri Pachouri agreed with his contentions. The Committee took note of the facts explained by the Administrative Department and recommended to revise the allocation of Shri Rajesh Kumar Pachouri from Chhattisgarh to M.P. |
|---|---|---|
| the position and supported the claim of the representationist. Accordingly, the Committee recommended to revise the allocation of Shri Gaya Prasad Ahirwar from Chhattisgarh to M.P. on the post of Tracer, under revised policy for allocation of SC/ST. | ||
|---|---|---|
| 23 | Shri Shiv Das Kol, Embankment Officer, WRD (Representation) |
The Committee considered the representation of Shri Kol in which he requested for revising his allocation from Chhattisgarh to M.P. on the grounds of belonging to Scheduled Tribe and domicile of M.P. Administrative Department of Shri Kol confirmed the position and supported the claim of the representationist. Accordingly, the Committee recommended to revise the allocation of Shri Shiv Das Kol from Chhattisgarh to M.P, under revised policy for allocation of SC/ST. |
| 24 | Shri Munna Lal Sheskar, Bhritya, WRD (Representation) | The Committee considered the representation of Shri Sheskar in which he requested for revising his allocation from Chhattisgarh to M.P. on the grounds of belonging to Scheduled caste and domicile of M.P. However, Administrative Department of Shri Sheskar informed the Committee that he belongs to Non-State Cadre and as such, no allocation/revision of allocation of such employees is resorted to under Madhya Pradesh State Reorganisation Act. It was further informed that no specific order for allocation was made in respect of Non-State Cadre employees who stood allocated to the respective successor State in which they were working as on 01.11.2000. The Committee took note of the facts explained by the Administrative Department and viewed that the matter does not fall under its purview. Accordingly, the Committee recommended to reject the representation of Shri Sheskar. |
| 25 | Shri Kalooram Ladia, Sub-Engineer, WRD (Representation) | The Administrative Department of Shri Ladia informed that order for revising allocation from Chhattisgarh to M.P. has already been issued. The Committee took note of the position and dropped the case from agenda. |
| 26 | Shri Purushottam Kori, Sub-Engineer, WRD (Representation) | The Administrative Department of Shri Kori informed that order for revising allocation from Chhattisgarh to M.P. has already been issued. The Committee took note of the position and dropped the case from agenda. |
| 27 | Shri Rewa Ram Yadav, SADO, Department of Farmers’ Welfare \& Agriculture Dev. (W.P. No.1508/2006) | In compliance with the directions dated 15.11.11, passed by the Hon’ble High Court of M.P., the representation of the petitioner was considered by the Committee in light of the comments received from the Administrative Department. Shri Yadav has contended that 6 SADOs, who were junior to him, have been |
| allocated to M.P. while he has been allocated to Chhattisgarh. Administrative Department of the petitioner, however, informed that his junior Shri S S Tyagi, Shri R S Tomar, Shri Sadaqat Baig and Shri Padam Singh Yadav were retained in M.P. on mutual basis. Shri Shiv Narain Parashar was retained due to his ensuing retirement i.e. within two years of crucial date. Shri D.S. Ahirwar was allocated to M.P. under SC category for having opted for M.P. Since the grounds raised by the petitioner did not turn out to be valid, the Administrative Department requested for rejection of his request. However, while perusing the comments of the Administrative Department, the Committee came across a statement as per which 13 other SADOs, junior to the petitioner, were allocated to Madhya Pradesh. As the Administrative Department was asked to clarify the position, it sought time to check/verify the details. The Committee desired that the position be verified/checked and accordingly, decided to defer the case till its next meeting. | ||
|---|---|---|
| 28 | Shri Kirti Kumar Jain, RAEO, Department of Farmers’ Welfare \& Agriculture Dev. (W.P. No.1509/06) | In compliance with the directions dated 15.11.11, passed by the Hon’ble High Court of M.P., the representation of the petitioner was considered by the Committee. Shri Jain has contended that certain RAEOs, who were junior to him, have been allocated to M.P. while he has been allocated to Chhattisgarh. Shri Jain also contended that his application for mutual transfer has not been considered. No comments were provided by the Administrative Department with regard to mutual transfer. However, the Administrative Department admitted that 16 RAEOs, junior to the petitioner, seem to have been allocated to M.P. However, the Administrative Department sought time to further examine the matter. The Committee desired that the position be verified/checked and accordingly, decided to defer the case till its next meeting. |
| 29 | Shri Ram Lal Singh Kushwaha, SADO, Department of Farmers’ Welfare \& Agriculture Dev. (W.P. No.1165/06) |
In compliance with the directions dated 03.10 .07 , passed by the Hon’ble High Court of M.P., the representation of the petitioner was considered by the Committee. Shri Kushwaha has contended that 4 SADOs viz. Shri Suresh Kumar Jain, Shri L N Choudhary, Shri M K Prajapati and Shri Suresh Babu Sharma, who were junior to him, have been allocated to M.P. while he has been allocated to Chhattisgarh. Administrative Department of the petitioner contended that Shri Jain was allocated to M.P. on mutual basis versus Shri Basant Lal Pandey who has been allocated to Chhattisgarh. Further, Shri Choudhary and Shri Prajapati were allocated to M.P. under ST category |
under domicile/option basis. Further, allocation of Shri Sharma was made to M.P. erroneously. However, even after rectification of his seniority, State Advisory Committee did not revise his allocation. However, while perusing the comments of the Administrative Department, the Committee came across a statement as per which 15 SADOs, junior to Shri Kushwaha have been allocated to M.P. On seeking clarification, the Administrative Department sought time to further examine the matter. The Committee desired that the position be verified/checked and accordingly, decided to defer the case till its next meeting.
30 Shri L S Rajput, RAEO, Department of Farmers’ Welfare \& Agriculture Dev.
(W.P. No.2708/06)
In compliance with the directions dated 14.12.11, passed by the Hon’ble High Court of M.P., Bench at Gwalior, the representation of the petitioner was considered by the Committee. However, the Administrative Department informed the Committee that an appeal has been filed on 02.01 .13 against the verdict of the Hon’ble High Court. The Committee, accordingly, deferred the case till its next meeting and desired that updated position be placed before it.
31 Shri Atma Ram Arse, RAEO, Department of Farmers’ Welfare \& Agriculture Dev. (Representation)
32 Shri Pramod Kumar Nag, RAEO, Department of Farmers’ Welfare \& Agriculture Dev. (Representation)
33 Shri Hari Mohan Jatav, RAEO, Department of Farmers’ Welfare \& Agriculture Dev. (Representation)
34 Shri Ramesh Prasad Maravi, RAEO, Department of Farmers’ Welfare \& Agriculture Dev. (Representation)
35 Shri Ramesh Prasad Goiya, Manchitrakar, Department of Farmers’ Welfare \& Agriculture Dev. (Representation)
36 Smt. Dashwant Kumre, RAEO, Department of
The Committee considered the representations of these ten employees of Department of Farmers’ Welfare \& Agriculture Development, in which they requested for revising their allocation from Chhattisgarh to M.P. on the grounds of belonging to SC/ST category/domicile of M.P/optee of M.P. However, their Administrative Department informed the Committee that all of them belong to Non-State Cadre and as such, no allocation/revision of allocation of such employees is resorted to under Madhya Pradesh State Reorganisation Act. It was further informed that no specific order for allocation was made in respect of Non-State Cadre employees who stood allocated to the respective successor State in which they were working as on 01.11.2000. The Committee took note of the facts explained by the Administrative Department and viewed that the matter does not fall under its purview. Accordingly, the Committee recommended to reject representations of these employees.
| 37 | Farmers’ Welfare & Agriculture Dev. (W.P. No.16402/2012) |
| Shri Nanas Singh Dhurve, RAEO, Department of Farmers’ Welfare & Agriculture Dev. (W.P. No.16409/2012) | |
| 38 | Shri Manoj Kumar Atal, RAEO, Department of Farmers’ Welfare & Agriculture Dev. (W.P. No.16409/2012) |
| 39 | Shri Sita Ram Vasure, RAEO, Department of Farmers’ Welfare & Agriculture Dev. (W.P. No.16409/2012) |
| 40 | Shri Om Prakash Jatav, RAEO, Department of Farmers’ Welfare & Agriculture Dev. (W.P. No.16409/2012) |
| 41 | Shri Ganga Singh Uike, RHEO, Department of Horticulture (Representation) |
| 42 | Shri Kamal Morya, RHEO, Department of Horticulture (Representation) |
| 43 | Shri Shravan Kumar Chourasiya, RHEO, Department of Horticulture (Representation) |
| contentions are yet to be checked/verified for which they sought some more time. The Committee, accordingly, decided to defer the case till its next meeting and desired that a detailed report/comments be compiled by then. | ||
|---|---|---|
| 44 | Shri Bhawar Lal Rawal, Assistant Grade III, Department of Horticulture (Representation) | The Committee considered the representation of Shri Rawal who requested for revising allocation from Chhattisgarh to M.P. under SC/ST category. Shri Rawal has contended that he is a domicile of M.P. and has also opted for M.P. However, Administrative Deptt of Shri Rawal informed that his contentions are yet to be checked/verified for which they sought some more time. The Committee, accordingly, decided to defer the case till its next meeting and desired that a detailed report/comments be compiled by then. |
| 45 | Shri R S Rampure, RHEO, Department of Horticulture (Representation) | The Committee considered the representation of Shri Rampure who requested for revising allocation from Chhattisgarh to M.P. under SC/ST category. Shri Rampure has contended that he is a domicile of M.P. and has also opted for M.P. However, Administrative Deptt of Shri Rampure informed that his contentions are yet to be checked/verified and sought some more time. The Committee, accordingly, decided to defer the case till its next meeting and desired that a detailed report/comments be compiled by then. |
| 46 | Dr. Pramod Kumar Dubey, Medical Officer, Department of Public Health \& Family Welfare (W.P. No.2398/2007) | In compliance with the directions of Hon’ble High Court of M.P., the Committee considered the representations of Dr. Pramod Kumar Dubey and Dr. Krishna Kumar Bhargav. However, their Administrative Department requested for deferment of the cases since appeal is being filed against the said |
| 47 | Dr. Krishna Kumar Bhargav, Child Specialist, Department of PH \& FW (W.P. No.1086/05) | judgment in consultation with Government Counsels. The Committee, accordingly, decided to defer these cases till its next meeting and desired that correct and complete position be furnished to it in the next meeting. |
| 48 | Dr. P K Aggarwal, Senior Medical Officer, Department of PH \& FW, (W.P. No.21564/2003) | In compliance with the directions dated 15.09 .03 of Hon’ble High Court of M.P., The Committee considered the representation of Dr. Aggarwal in which he contended that his domicile was erroneously shown as that of Durg, Chhattisgarh and accordingly, he was wrongly allocated Chhattisgarh in A-3 category (Domicile). He has stated that his domicile is M.P. and under A-4 (Juniority) category, he should be allocated M.P. Administrative Deptt informed the Committee that it is yet to check/verify the claim of the petitioner and sought time for the same. The Committee, accordingly, decided to defer the matter and desired that a detailed report/complete facts be placed before it in its next meeting. |
| 49 | Smt. Neema Raghuvanshi, Mahila Swasthya Karyakarta, Department of PH \& FW. (W.P. No.771/2011) |
In compliance with the directions dated 14.02.13, the Committee considered the representation of Smt. Raghuvanshi in which she requested for revision of her allocation on mutual basis. Admin. Deptt. informed that it is yet to receive a report from the Govt of Chhattisgarh and assured that it would expedite the case. The Committee, on request from the Administrative Department, decided to defer the matter and desired that a detailed report/complete facts be placed before it in its next meeting. |
|---|---|---|
| 50 | Dr. R.P. Srivastava, Medical Specialist, Department of PH \& FW. (W.P. No.4369/2007) |
In compliance with the directions dated 28.02 .12 of Hon’ble High Court of M.P., the Committee considered the representation of Dr. Srivastava. However, the Admin. Deptt requested to defer the matter since appeal is being filed in the matter, in consultation with the Govt. Counsel. The Committee decided to defer the matter and desired that updated position be placed before it in its next meeting. |
| 51 | Dr. Ashok Kumar Dixit, Chief Medical Officer, Department of PH \& FW. (W.P. No.4996/2006) |
In compliance with the directions dated 28.02 .12 of Hon’ble High Court of M.P., the Committee considered the representation of Dr. Dixit. However, the Administrative Deptt requested to defer the matter till next meeting since appeal is being filed in the matter, in consultation with the Govt. Counsel. The Committee, accordingly, decided to defer the matter and desired that updated position be placed before it in its next meeting. |
| 52 | Dr. Ramesh Kumar Neema, Medical Specialist, Department of PH \& FW. (W.P.No.1836/2007) |
In compliance with the directions dated 30.11 .11 of the Hon’ble High Court of M.P., the Committee considered the representation of Dr. Neema in which he contended that his juniors have been retained in M.P. while he has been allocated Chhattisgarh. Administrative Deptt averred that it has yet to check/verify the claim of the petitioner and sought more time. The Committee, accordingly, decided to defer the matter and desired that a detailed report/complete facts of the case be placed before it in its next meeting. |
| 53 | Dr. Rajendra Prasad Gupta, Medical Officer, Department of PH \& FW., (W.P. No.7077/2010) |
Dr. Gupta has filed a Writ Petition in Hon’ble High Court of M.P. citing certain grounds which include illness of his aged parents and mutual transfer with Dr. T S Shyam. Admin Deptt informed that mutual transfer with Dr. Shyam is not permissible under the existing guidelines. However, Administrative Deptt is in the process of filing a detailed Counter Affidavit in the Hon’ble Court. Taking note of the facts that the matter is sub judice and no representation of Dr. Gupta is pending with the Govt, the Committee decided to defer the matter and viewed that the case would be taken for consideration by the Committee in case any such directions are given by the Court. |
| 54 | Shri R D Shakya, Compounder, Department of PH \& FW/Controller of Food \& Drugs (Representation) |
The Committee considered the representation of Shri Shakya, in which he requested for revising their allocation from Chhattisgarh to M.P. on the grounds of belonging to SC/ST category/domicile of M.P/optee of M.P. However, Administrative Department of Shri Shakya informed the Committee that he belongs to Non-State Cadre and no allocation/revision of allocation of such employees is resorted to under Madhya Pradesh State Reorganisation Act. It was further informed that no specific order for allocation was made in respect of Non-State Cadre employees who stood allocated to the respective successor State in which they were working as on 01.11.2000. The Committee took note of the facts explained by the Administrative Department and viewed that the matter does not fall under its purview. Accordingly, the Committee recommended to reject representation of Shri Shakya. |
|---|---|---|
| 55 | Dr. Muhammad Iqbal Khan, AMO, Department of AYUSH (W.P. No.7571/2006) |
In compliance with the directions dated 15.11 .11 of the Hon’ble High Court of M.P., the Committee considered the representation of Dr. Khan in which he has contended that his juniors have been retained in M.P. while has been allocated Chhattisgarh. However, the Administrative Department refuted the claim of the petitioner and averred that only one of his juniors Dr. Kalvadiya was retained in M.P. and the same was done under OBC category. As such, the claim of Dr. Khan was not genuine. The Committee, taking note of the facts explained by the Administrative, recommended to reject Dr. Khan’s representation. A detailed speaking order shall be issued. |
| 56 | Dr. Kailash Chandra Mahajan, AMO, Department of AYUSH (W.P.No.6775/2006) |
In compliance with the directions dated 15.11 .11 of Hon’ble High Court of M.P., the Committee considered the representation of Dr. Mahajan in which he has contended that his juniors were retained in M.P. while he has been allocated Chhattisgarh. Administrative Department refuted the claim and stated that prima facie no junior to Dr. Mahajan has been retained in M.P. However, Administrative Department sought further time to re-examine the matter. The Committee, accordingly, decided to defer the matter and desired that a detailed report/complete facts of the matter be placed before it in its next meeting. |
| 57 | Dr. Dinesh Kumar Shukla, AMO, Department of AYUSH (W.P. No.5381/2005) |
The Committee took up the matter of Dr. Shukla for consideration as Hon’ble High Court of M.P., vide its order dated 15.12.10, had quashed his allocation to Chhattisgarh. However, Administrative Department of Shri Shukla informed that an appeal is being filed in the matter in consultation with Govt Counsel and hence, requested for deferment of the matter till appeal |
| is disposed by the Court. The Committee, accordingly, decided to defer the matter and desired that detailed report be placed before it in its next meeting. | ||
|---|---|---|
| 58 | Dr. Upendra Kumar Gupta, AMO/Lecturer, Department of AYUSH (W.P.No.2494/2005) | In compliance with directions dated 13.03 .12 of the Hon’ble High Court of M.P., the Committee considered the representation of Dr. Gupta who has claimed that two of his juniors have been retained in M.P. while he has been allocated Chhattisgarh. Apart from this, he has been working as Lecturer before the appointed day i.e. 01.11.2000. Administrative Department informed that Dr. Dinesh Kumar Pathak, junior to Dr. Gupta, has been allocated Chhattisgarh and Dr. Divendra Kumar Vishwakarma has been retained in/allocated M.P. under OBC category. As regards Dr. Gupta working as Lecturer, it was informed that Dr. Gupta was appointed as Lecturer much later than the appointed date of 01.11.2000 and was working as AMO at the time of allocation. The Committee, in view of the facts explained by the Administrative Department, recommended to reject the representation of Dr. Gupta. A detailed speaking order shall be issued. |
| 59 | Dr. Harikrishna Aggarwal, AMO, Department of AYUSH (W.P.No.3811/2007) | In compliance with direction dated 20.07 .09 of Hon’ble High Court of M.P., the Committee considered the representation of Dr. Aggarwal who claimed that his juniors have been retained in M.P. while he has been allocated Chhattisgarh. Administrative Department, with regard to allocation of juniors to M.P., informed that Dr. S K Rawat has been allocated M.P. on mutual basis, Dr. Makhan Singh Kushwaha was allocated M.P. due to serious illness/medical hardship, Dr. Abdul Khan was allocated M.P. due to physical disability and Dr. Rohini Prasad Mishra, being senior, allocated M.P. The Committee, in view of the explanation made by the Administrative Department, recommended to reject the representation of Dr. Aggarwal. A detailed speaking order shall be issued. |
| 60 | Dr. Aditya Narayan Vajpayee, AMO, Department of AYUSH. (W.P.No. 5390/2005) |
In compliance with directions dated 15.12 .10 of Hon’ble High Court of M.P., the Committee considered the representation of Dr. Vajpayee in which he claimed that his junior Dr. Mahesh Chandra Sharma has been allocated M.P. while he has been allocated Chhattisgarh. Dr. Vajpayee also sought allocation to M.P. due to illness of his mother. Department of AYUSH requested that since appeal is being filed against the said judgment, the matter be referred. The Committee, in view of the facts explained by the Administrative Department, decided to defer the matter and desired that updated position be placed before it in its next meeting. |
| 61 | Dr. Kunwar Pal Singh, AMO, Department of AYUSH (W.P. No.6774/2006) | In compliance with the directions dated 15.11.11 of Hon’ble High Court of M.P., the Committee considered the representations of Dr. Kunwar Pal Singh, Dr. Rajesh Joshi and Dr. Vishambhar Dayal Chaturvedi who have contended that AMOs, junior to them, have been retained in M.P. while they have been allocated to Chhattisgarh. However, Department of AYUSH initially refuted their claim and averred that it has yet to check/verify their claim in detail for which it sought further time. The Committee, accordingly, decided to defer the matter and desired that a detailed report/ complete facts be placed before it in its next meeting. |
|---|---|---|
| 62 | Dr. Rajesh Joshi, AMO, Department of AYUSH, (W.P. No.3065/2006) | |
| 63 | Dr. Vishambhar Dayal Chaturvedi, AMO, Department of AYUSH (W.P. No.3905/2007) | The case was considered in earlier meeting of SAC when it was recommended for rejection in view of the comments received from Department of AYUSH. The Administrative Department was requested for furnishing draft Speaking Order which is still awaited. The matter was deferred again with direction to the Department of AYUSH to provide draft Speaking Order without any further delay. |
| 64 | Dr. Vishnu Dutt Mishra, AMO, Department of AYUSH (W.P.No.549/2006) | The case was considered in earlier meeting of SAC when it was recommended for rejection in view of the comments received from Department of AYUSH. The Administrative Department was requested for furnishing draft Speaking Order which is still awaited. The matter was deferred again with direction to the Department of AYUSH to provide draft Speaking Order without any further delay. |
| 65 | Dr. Suresh Kumar Sharma, AMO, Department of AYUSH (W.P. No.5094/2005) | Dr. Sharma filed a Writ Petition in Hon’ble High Court of M.P. in which Counter Affidavit was filed by Union of India and State Government. Since no further progress of the Court case was known, State Government was requested to furnish a copy of directions of the Court/representation, if any. Department of AYUSH has now informed that Dr. Sharma has since retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 30.06.13. The Committee took note of the position and decided to drop the matter from the agenda. |
| 66 | Dr. Devendra Pratap Singh, AMO, Department of AYUSH (W.P. No.3793/2008) | The case was considered in earlier meeting of State Advisory Committee when it was recommended for rejection in view of the comments received from Department of AYUSH. The Administrative Department was requested for furnishing draft Speaking Order which is still awaited. The matter was deferred again with direction to the Department of AYUSH to provide draft Speaking Order without any further delay. |
| 67 | Dr. Kedar Nath Mishra, AMO, Department of AYUSH (W.P. No.1037/2006) | The case was considered in earlier meeting of SAC when it was recommended for rejection in view of the comments received from Department of AYUSH. The Administrative Department was requested for furnishing draft Speaking Order which is still awaited. The matter was deferred again with direction to the Department of AYUSH to provide draft Speaking Order without any further delay. |
| 68 | Shri Pramod Kumar Sharma, Sub-Engineer, PWD (W.P.No.3337/2006) |
In compliance with the directions dated 28.02 .12 of Hon’ble High Court of M.P., the Committee considered the representation of Shri Sharma in which he contended that his juniors were retained in M.P. while he was allocated Chhattisgarh. However, the Administrative Department informed that Shri Vinod Kumar Srivastava and Shri Chandra Shekhar Dubey were allocated M.P. on mutual basis. Further, Shri Brijendra Sharma and Shri Chandra Shekhar were allocated Chhattisgarh under A-4 (Juniority) category. Shri Shankar Singh Solanki was allocated M.P. under SC category. Shri Brijendra Yadav and Shri Surendra Kumar Patel were allocated M.P. under OBC category. As such, the Administrative Department refuted the claim of the petitioner. The Committee took note of the position explained by the Administrative Department and recommended to reject the representation of Shri Pramod Kumar Sharma. A detailed speaking order shall be issued. |
|---|---|---|
| 69 | Shri Anand Kumar Mishra, Sub-Engineer, PWD (W.P. No.1489/2005) |
The committee took up the matter of Shri Mishra and Shri Bhadoria for consideration as Hon’ble High Court of M.P., vide its order dated 15.12.10, had quashed their allocation to Chhattisgarh. However, |
| 70 | Shri Rajveer Singh Bhadoria, Sub- Engineer, PWD (W.P. No.396/2006) |
Administrative Department informed that an appeal is being filed in the matter in consultation with Government Counsel and hence, requested for deferment of the matter till appeal is disposed by the Court. The Committee, accordingly, decided to defer the matter and desired that detailed report be placed before it in its next meeting. |
| 71 | Shri Shailendra Parmar, Sub-Engineer, PWD (W.P. No.143/2013 |
In compliance with directions dated 09.01 .13 of Hon’ble High Court of M.P., the Committee considered the representation of Shri Parmar in which he contended that two of his juniors were allocated M.P. under the OBC category while he was allocated Chhattisgarh, under General Category. Administrative Department, having examined his case, admitted that request of Shri Parmar is genuine. The Committee, in light of the position explained by the Administrative Department, recommended to revise allocation of Shri Parmar from Chhattisgarh to Madhya Pradesh. |
| 72 | Shri Ashok Kumar Navare, Assistant Grade III, PWD (Representation) |
The Committee considered the representation of Shri Navare in which he requested for revising his allocation from Chhattisgarh to M.P. on the grounds of belonging to Scheduled caste and domicile of M.P. However, Administrative Department of Shri Navare informed the Committee that he belongs to Non-State Cadre and as such, no allocation/revision of allocation of such employees is resorted to under |
| Madhya Pradesh State Reorganisation Act. It was further informed that no specific order for allocation was made in respect of Non-State Cadre employees who stood allocated to the respective successor State in which they were working as on 01.11.2000. The Committee perused the records and observed that since Shri Navare was working in Madhya Pradesh as on 01.11.2000, he was to be retained in M.P. Since the Administrative Department did not further any justification for relieving Shri Navare for joining Chhattisgarh on a later date i.e. 05.11.2000, the Committee decided to defer the matter and desired that a detailed report/complete facts be placed before it in its next meeting. | ||
| 73 | Shri Bhuvan Prakash Nirapure, Constable Radio, Department of Home (Representation) | The Committee considered the representations of these eight employees of Department of Home, who requested for revising allocation from Chhattisgarh to M.P. under SC/ST category/domicile/optee of M.P. As the Department of Home confirmed their claims, the Committee recommended for revision of allocation of all these employees from Chhattisgarh to Madhya Pradesh under policy for SC/ST employees. |
| 74 | Shri Ram Ji Bhagelkar, Constable Radio, Department of Home (Representation) | |
| 75 | Shri Sukh Dayal Deheria, Head Constable Radio, Department of Home (Representation) | |
| 76 | Shri Matadeen Karoriya, Constable Radio, Department of Home (Representation) | |
| 77 | Shri Umendra Kumar Uike, Constable Radio, Department of Home (Representation) | |
| 78 | Shri Mangi Lal Malviya, Constable, Department of Home (Representation) | |
| 79 | Shri Jagmohan Choudhary, Constable, Department of Home (Representation) | |
| 80 | Shri Ram Jeevan Chichware, Constable Radio, Department of Home (Representation) |
| 81 | Shri Thakur Prasad Markam, ASI, Department of Home (Representation) |
The Committee considered the representation of Shri Markam who requested for revising his allocation from Chhattisgarh to M.P. under SC/ST category. Shri Markam has contended that he is a domicile of M.P. and has also opted for M.P. However, Department of Home informed that it is yet to check/verify the contentions of the employee and sought some more time. The Committee, accordingly, decided to defer the case till its next meeting and desired that a detailed report/comments be placed before it in its next meeting. |
|---|---|---|
| 82 | Shri Dubey Singh Marko, Constable, Department of Home (Representation) |
The Committee considered the representation of Shri Marko who requested for revising his allocation from Chhattisgarh to M.P. under SC/ST category. Shri Marko has contended that he is a domicile of M.P. and has also opted for M.P. However, Department of Home informed that it is yet to check/verify the contentions of the employee and sought some more time. The Committee, accordingly, decided to defer the case till its next meeting and desired that a detailed report/comments be placed before it in its next meeting. |
| 83 | Dr. Brij Kishore Sharma, Vet. Asstt. Surgeon, Department of Animal Husbandry (Writ Appeal No.427/2011) |
In compliance with directions dated 13.03 .12 of Hon’ble High Court of M.P., the Committee considered the representation of Dr Sharma who contended that three of his juniors Dr A K Verma, Dr Satyndera Srivastava and Dr M S Salwar were retained in M.P. while he was allocated Chhattisgarh. Administrative Department averred that Dr Verma, Dr Salwar and Dr Srivastava were given ACP with effect from 18.11.2000, 26.10.2000 and 23.01.2001 respectively, which is later date than the appointed day i.e. 23.09.2000. Besides, other Doctors, which were allocated M.P., were in lower pay scale on the crucial date and were granted ACP with effect from a later date. A few other Doctors, who were junior to Dr Sharma, were retained in M.P. due to other reasons on not under A-4 category (juniority). Accordingly, Administrative Department averred that the grounds raised by Dr Sharma in his representation are not valid. The Committee, in view of the facts explained by the Administrative Department, decided to reject the representation of Dr Sharma. A detailed speaking order shall be issued. |
| 84 | Shri R K Sayre, Asstt Grade I, Department of Animal Husbandry (Representation) |
The representations of Shri Sayre and Shri Kurve were considered by the Committee. The representationists have contended that they belong to SC/ST category and are domicile of M.P. The Administrative Department sought further time for checking/verifying their claims. |
| 85 | Shri Ashok Kumar Kurve, Asstt Vet Field Officer, Department of Animal Husbandry (Representation) | The Committee, accordingly, decided to defer the matter and desired that detailed report/complete facts be placed before it in its next meeting. |
|---|---|---|
| 86 | Shri Rajneesh Jain, Planning Officer, Department of School Education (W.P.No.13347/2004) | It was observed that order revising allocation of Shri Jain from Chhattisgarh to Madhya Pradesh has already been issued. The Committee, therefore, decided to drop the case from the agenda. |
| 87 | Shri Muna Lal Ahirwar, Pradhan Pathak, Department of School Education (Representation) | The Committee considered the representation in which Shri Ahirwar requested for revising allocation from Chhattisgarh to M.P. as he belongs to SC category and is a domicile of M.P. The Administrative Department sought deferment of the case as it required further time for detailed checking/verification of the claim. The Committee, accordingly, decided to defer the matter and desired that a detailed report/factual position be placed before it in its next meeting. |
| 88 | Shri Mohd. Tariq Ali Khan, Asstt Grade III, Department of Technical Education (Representation) | The Committee considered the representation of Shri Khan who requested for revision of allocation from Chhattisgarh to M.P. on the grounds that he is a victim of Bhopal Gas Tragedy and has received a compensation of Rs. $50,000 /$. Though the case seems to be covered under the existing guidelines, confirmation of the claim of the reprsentationist was not available from the Administrative Department. General Administration Department, accordingly, sought further time for checking the position. The Committee, therefore, decided to defer the matter and desired that factual position be verified and placed before it in its next meeting. |
| 89 | Shri Balwant Singh Thakur, Bhritya, Department of Higher Education/GAD (Representation) | The Committee considered the representation of Shri Thakur who argued that at the time of allocation, he was retained in Madhya Pradesh as his service was not regularised at that time. General Administrative Department informed the Committee that his case is fit for allocation to Chhattisgarh, as requested by him, as he is a class IV employee. The Committee, accordingly, recommended to revise allocation of Shri Thakur from Madhya Pradesh to Chhattisgarh. |
| 90 | Shri Virendra Kumar Srivastava, Fisheries Officer, Department of Fisheries (Writ Appeal No.231/2012) | In compliance with the directions dated 27.04.12 of Hon’ble High Court of M.P., the Committee considered the representation of Shri Srivastava who requested for revision of allocation as his juniors were allocated M.P. while he was allocated Chhattisgarh. The Administrative Department, however, contended that junior officers, as named by Shri Srivastava in his representation, were allocated M.P. in the junior pay- |
| scale i.e. Rs.4500-7000 and as such, the claim of Shri Srivastava is not valid. Besides, Shri Jai Singh Parihar was allocated M.P. on mutual basis and not under A-4 category. Further, Shri Surya Mani Srivastava was retained in M.P. due to his ensuring superannuation. The Committee, in view of the facts explained by the Administrative Department, recommended to reject the representation of Shri Srivastava. A detailed speaking order shall be issued. | ||
| 91 | Shri Rajesh Kumar Pathak, Fisheries Inspector, Department of Fisheries (Writ Appeal No.494/2012) | In compliance with the directions dated 31.08.12 of Hon’ble High Court of M.P., the Committee considered the representation of Shri Pathak who requested for revision of allocation as his juniors were retained in M.P. The Administrative Department admitted that junior officers were given ACP with retrospective effect and hence, the claim of Shri Pathak is genuine. The Committee, accordingly, recommended to revise the allocation of Shri Pathak from Chhattisgarh to Madhya Pradesh. |
| 92 | Shri Trilok Chandra Gupta, Panchayat & Social Education Organiser, Department of Social Welfare (W.P. No.769/2005) | In compliance with the directions dated 05.05.11 of Hon’ble High Court of M.P., the Committee considered the representation of Shri Gupta who requested for revision of allocation stating that his juniors have been alloated M.P. while he has been allocated to Chhattisgarh. The Administrative Department, however, sought further time for checking/verifying the position regarding contentions of the petitioner. The Committee, accordingly, decided to defer the matter and desired that factual position be verified and placed before it in its next meeting. |
| 93 | Muhammad Saleem Khan, Asstt. Grade III, Deptt. of Housing & Environment (W.P. No.4747/2006) | In compliance with directions dated 29.10.07 of Hon’ble High Court of M.P., the Committee considered the representation of Shri Khan who requested for revision of allocation on the grounds of being victim of Bhopal Gas Tragedy and also under spouse policy. The Administrative Department confirmed the position of his being a recipient of Rs.50,000/- as compensation for being Bhopal Gas Tragedy. The Committee, in view of the facts explained by the Administrative Department, recommended for revision of allocation of Shri Khan from Chhattisgarh to Madhya Pradesh. |
| 94 | Shri Vijay Pal Singh Bhadoriya, Sub-Engineer, Department of Public Health Engineering (W.P. No.2672/2005) | In compliance of the direction dated 14.03.13 of Hon’ble High Court of M.P., the Committee considered the representation of Shri Bhadoriya who requested for revision of allocation under spouse policy and also since his juniors were allocated Madhya Pradesh. The Administrative Department, however, stated that the petitioner’s wife is not a government employee and as such, the case is not covered under spouse policy. As |
| 95 | Shri Mukesh Kumar Nimje, Tracer, Department of Public Health Engineering (Representation) | regards allocation of juniors to M.P., the Admin. Deptt sought more time for examination. The Committee, accordingly, decided to defer the matter and desired that complete factual position be placed before it in its next meeting. |
| Shri Nimje represented that he belongs to Scheduled Tribe and is a domicile of M.P. Besides, he also averred that his wife is working as an Assistant Teacher in Govt College, Anup Pur, M.P. The Administrative Department informed that Shri Nimje was initially allocated to M.P. as per his option. Before issue of TFAL, he applied for mutual transfer to Chhattisgarh. Therefore, he was allocated to Chhattisgarh on mutual basis on the recommendations of the then allocation Committee. It was brought to the notice of the Committee that he had once availed the facility of revision of allocation. Now, again Shri Nimje has requested for revision of allocation from Chhattisgarh to M.P. The Administrative Department, however, sought further time for checking/verifying the position regarding contentions of the petitioner. The Committee, accordingly, decided to defer the matter and desired that factual position be verified and placed before it in its next meeting. | |
| 100 | Shri Bhagvat Prasad Khande, Investigator, Department of Tribal & SC Development (Representation) | The Committee considered the representation of Shri Khande as he contended that he belongs to SC category, is a domicile of Chhattisgarh and had also opted for Chhattisgarh. Administrative Department confirmed this position. The Committee, accordingly, recommended to revise allocation of Shri Khande from Madhya Pradesh to Chhattisgarh under policy for SC/ST employees. |
| 101 | Shri Chandra Kishore Bhagel, Deputy Director, Department of Employment & Training (Representation) | The Committee considered the representation of Shri Bhagel who contended that he belongs to SC category and had opted for M.P. Domicile of the employee is not known. The Committee deferred the matter till next meeting in the absence of any comments from the Administrative Department. |
| 102 | Shri Jagdish Prasad Yadav, Accountant, Department of Rural Industries (Writ Petition No.6687/2003) | In compliance with the directions dated 21.10.10 of Hon’ble High Court of M.P., the Committee considered the representation of Shri Yadav who claimed that his junior Shri Satish Bilore has been allocated M.P. Administrative Department confirmed the position and the Committee, accordingly, recommended to revise the allocation of Shri Yadav from Chhattisgarh to Madhya Pradesh. |
| 103 | Shri Devi Lal Kherete, Asstt Grade III, Deptt of Rural Industries (Representation) | Shri Kherete has contended that he is an SC employee and is domicile of Guna, M.P. and also opted for M.P. Administrative Department confirmed the position and the Committee, accordingly, recommended to revise his allocation from Chhattisgarh to Madhya Pradesh under policy for SC/ST employees. |
| 104 | Shri Reval Singh Solanki, Assistant Director, Deptt of Rural Industries (Representation) | Shri Reval Singh Solanki requested for revision of allocation from Chhattisgarh to M.P. being an ST employee and domicile of M.P. Accordingly, the matter was included in the agenda finalised for meeting of the Committee scheduled for 20.09.13. However, before the Committee could consider the representation, Shri Solanki submitted another representation on 11.09.13 withdrawing his earlier representation and prayed that he wants to continue in Chhattisgarh. The Committee, accordingly, dropped the case from the agenda. |
| 105 | Shri P L Kemiya, Inspector, Weight & Measures, Deptt of Food & Civil Supplies (Representation) | Shri Kemiya contended that he belongs to SC category and is domicile of Sagar, M.P. However, Administrative Department sought deferment of the matter as verification of caste certificate was still to be done. The Committee, accordingly, decided to defer the matter and desired that factual position be placed before it in its next meeting. |
| 106 | Shri Dinanath Sirsant, Sub-Engineer, Deptt of Rural Development (OA No.3292/2002 W.P. No.20505/2003) | Shri Sirsant requested for revision of allocation from M.P. to Chhattisgarh stating that he is a domicile of Chhattishgarh and had opted for Chhattisgarh. Administrative Department of the petitioner, however, sought more time for checking/verifying his claim since his option is not readily traceable. The Committee, accordingly, decided to defer the matter and desired that complete facts of the case be placed before it in its next meeting. |
|---|---|---|
| 107 | Shri Harish Daryani, Assistant Grade III, Deptt of Rural Development (Representation) | The Committee considered the representation of Shri Daryani furthered on the grounds of being a victim of Bhopal Gas Tragedy and recipient of Rs.50,000/- as compensation. Shri Daryani has prayed for revision of allocation from Chhattisgarh to M.P. Though the case seems to be covered under the existing guidelines, confirmation of the claim of the reprsentationist was not available from the Administrative Department. General Administration Department, accordingly, sought further time for checking the position. The Committee, therefore, decided to defer the matter and desired that factual position be verified and placed before it in its next meeting. |
| 108 | Shri Dinesh Chand Malviya, Tracer, Deptt of Revenue, Land Records (Representation) | The Committee considered the representation of Shri Malviya who requested for revision of allocation from Chhattisgarh to M.P. stating that he belongs to SC category and is also a domicile/optee of M.P. However, the matter had to be deferred due to the absence of any comments from the Administrative Department. General Administration Department sought more time for verifying the claim of the representationist. The Committee accordingly decided to defer the matter and desired that position be verified and placed before it in its next meeting. |
| 109 | Shri Mohan Sharan Khare, Sub-Engineer, (Writ Appeal No.225/ 2012) (Representation) |
On receipt of the directions dated 04.05 .12 of Hon’ble High Court of M.P. for reconsideration of the representation of the petitioner, the GAD, Govt of M.P. was requested to furnish details of the case. However, GAD has stated that no details regarding posting, etc. of the petitioner could be gathered and sought further time for the same. The Committee, therefore, decided to defer the matter and desired that complete facts of the case be placed before it in its next meeting. |
ANNEXURE “A”
LIST OF ATTENDEES
- Shri Manoj Joshi, Joint Secretary, Government of India, New Delhi Chairman, State Advisory Committee, M.P.
- Shri K.Suresh, Principal Secretary, Department of General Administration, Government of Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal, M.P.
- Shri Manish Singh, Secretary, Department of Water Resources, Government of Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal, M.P.
- Shri Vinod Singh, Secretary, Department of Tribal Welfare, Government of Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal, M.P.
- Shri K.R. Mishra, Additional Secretary, Department of General Administration, Government of Chhattisgarh, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
- Shri O.P. Tanwar, Additional Secretary, Department of Horticulture, Government of Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal, M.P.
- Shri Rajesh Kaul, Deputy Secretary, Department of General Administration, Government of Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal, M.P.
- Shri A.K. Malhotra, Under Secretary, DoPT, Government of India, New Delhi.
- Shri B.K. Chandel, Deputy Secretary, Department of Food, Government of Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal, M.P.
- Shri M.K. Shukla, S.E. (Admin), Department of Public Works, Govt of Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal.
- Dr. S.G. Ishtiaq, Deputy Director, Deptt of AYUSH, Govt of M.P., Bhopal.
- Dr. S.P. Singh, Deputy Director, Department of Public Health \& Family Welfare, Govt of Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal.
- Shri H.N. Ahirwar, DSP Radio, Department of Home (Police Telecom), Govt of Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal.
- Shri S.K. Jain, Controller, Weights \& Measures, Department Food, Civil Supplies \& Consumer Affairs, Govt. of Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal.
- Shri D.P. Agraiya, Under Secretary, Commerce and Industry, Government of Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal, M.P.
- Shri Rajendra K. Hirodiya, SE (Admin.), Department of Public Health Engineering, Govt of Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal.
- Shri Purushottam Sharma, ADA, Department of Farmers’ Welfare \& Agriculture Development.
- Smt. Kamla Upadhyay, Under Secretary, Department of Home, Government of M.P., Bhopal, M.P.
- Shri Dinesh, Section Officer, SR-I, DOPT, Govt. of India, New Delhi.
- Dr. Arvind Chaturvedi, Deptt of Animal Husbandry, Govt of M.P., Bhopal.
- Smt. Shobha Ivanati, Department of Fisheries, Govt of Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal.