By Speed Post

F. No. 14/3/2006-SR(S)-Vol.-VIGovernment of India

Ministry of Personnel; Public Grievances & Pensions(Department of Personnel & Training)

***3rd Floor, Lok Nayak Bhawan,

Khan Market, New Delhi-l10003,Dated: 9th October, 2015

To

The Principal Secretary,Department of General Administration,Govt. of M.P., Vallabh Bhavan,Mantralaya, Bhopal-462004 (M.P.).

The Secretary,Department of General Administration,Govt. of Chhattisgarh, Mantralaya,New Raipur-492002 (Chhattisgarh).

SUbject: -Minutes of 26th meeting of the Advisory Committee, M.P.

Sir,I am directed to forward herewith the minutes of 26th meeting of the Advisory

Committee, M.P. held by circulation to consider the representations of State Governmentemployees in compliance of Court's directions and other representations received directfrom the employees of erstwhile state of M.P.

2. Kindly acknowledge the receipt of the minutes. The orders for acceptance/rejection of representations would be issued separately by the Central Govt.

EncIs.: As above

1,-- ._.~.i;[f

~'! ., c: , ;~.:' ~ I ~

2015 rl:J~

,.- Copyto:-

1. The Principal Secretary, Department of Public Health and Family Welfare, Govt .. of M.P., Vallabh Bhavan, Mantralaya, Bhopal-462004.

2. The Principal Secretary, Department of Public Health and Family Welfare, Govt.of Chhattisgarh, Mantralaya, New Raipur, Chhattisgarh-492002.

3. The Principal Secretary, Department of Ayush, Govt. of M.P., Vallabh Bhavan,Mantralaya, Bhopal-462004.

4. The Principal Secretary, Department of Health & Ayush, Govt. of Chhattisgarh,Mantralaya, New Raipur, Chhattisgarh-492002.

5. The Principal Secretary, Department of Public Works, Govt. of M.P., VallabhBhavan, Mantralaya, Bhopal-462004.

6. The Principal Secretary, Department of Public Works, Govt. of Chhattisgarh,Mantralaya, New Raipur, Chhattisgarh-492002.

7. The Principal Secretary, Department of Home, Govt. of M.P., Vallabh Bhavan,Mantralaya, Bhopal-462004.

8. The Principal Secretary, Department of Home, Govt. of Chhattisgarh, Mantralaya,New Raipur, Chhattisgarh-492002.

9. The Principal Secretary, Department of Revenue (Land Records), Govt. of M.P.,Vallabh Bhavan, Mantralaya, Bhopal-462004.

10. The Principal Secretary, Department of Revenue (Land Records), Govt. ofChhattisgarh, Mantralaya, New Raipur, Chhattisgarh-492002.

11. The Principal Secretary, Department of SC & ST Welfare, Govt. of M.P., VallabhBhavan, Mantralaya, Bhopal-462004.

12. The Principal Secretary, Department of Tribal Welfare, Govt. of Chhattisgarh,Mantralaya, New Raipur, Chhattisgarh-492002.

13. The Principal Secretary, Department of Water Resources, Govt. of M.P., VallabhBhavan, Mantralaya, Bhopal-462004.

14. The Principal Secretary, Department of Water Resources, Govt. of Chhattisgarh,Mantralaya, New Raipur, Chhattisgarh-492002.

15. The Principal Secretary, Department of Public Health Engineering, Govt. of M.P.,Vallabh Bhavan, Mantralaya, Bhopal-462004.

16. The Principal Secretary, Department of Public Health Engineering, Govt. ofChhattisgarh, Mantralaya, New Raipur, Chhattisgarh-492002.

17. The Principal Secretary, Department of Horticulture, Govt. of M.P., VallabhBhavan, Mantralaya, Bhopal-462004.

18. The Principal Secretary, Department of Horticulture, Govt. of Chhattisgarh,Mantralaya, New Raipur, Chhattisgarh-492002.

19. The Principal Secretary, Department of Farmers' Welfare and AgricultureDevelopment, Govt. of M.P., Vallabh Bhavan, Mantralaya, Bhopal-462004.

20. The Principal Secretary, Department of Agriculture, Govt. of Chhattisgarh,Mantralaya, New Raipur, Chhattisgarh-49·2002.

21. The Principal Secretary, Department of Commercial Tax, Govt. of M.P., VallabhBhavan, Mantralaya, Bhopal-462004.

22. The Principal Secretary, Department of Commercial Tax, Govt. of Chhattisgarh,Mantralaya, New Raipur, Chhattisgarh-492002.

23. The Principal Secretary, Department of Animal Husbandry (Veterinary), Govt. ofM.P., Vallabh Bhavan, Mantralaya, Bhopal-462004.

24. The Principal Secretary, Department of Animal Husbandry (Veterinary), Govt. ofChhattisgarh, Mantralaya, New Raipur, Chhattisgarh-492002.

25. The Principal Secretary, Department of Women and Child Development, Govt. ofM.P., Vallabh Bhavan, Mantralaya, Bhopal-462004.

26. The Principal Secretary, Department of Women and Child Development, Govt. ofChhattisgarh, Mantralaya, New Raipur, Chhattisgarh-492002.

27. The Principal Secretary, Department of Commerce and Industry, Govt. of M.P.,Vallabh Bhavan, Mantralaya, Bhopal-462004.

28. The Principal Secretary, Department of Commerce and Industry, Govt. ofChhattisgarh, Mantralaya, New Raipur, Chhattisgarh-492002.

29. The Principal Secretary, Department of Technical Education, Govt. of M.P.,Vallabh Bhavan, Mantralaya, Bhopal-462004.

30. The Principal Secretary, Department of Technical Education, Govt. ofChhattisgarh, Mantralaya, New Raipur, Chhattisgarh-492002.

31. The Principal Secretary, Department of School Education, Govt. of M.P., VallabhBhavan, Mantralaya, Bhopal-462004.

32. The Principal Secretary, Department of School Education, Govt. of Chhattisgarh,Mantralaya, New Raipur, Chhattisgarh-492002.

Minutes of 26th meeting of Advisory Committee, M.P.

26th meeting of Advisory Committee, M.P. was held by circulation of agenda to thefollowing»

i. Ms. Archana Varma, Joint Secretary (AV),

DoPT, Government of India

ii. Shri K. Suresh, Principal Secretary,D/o General Administration,Government of M.P.

iii. Shri D.D. Singh, Special SecretaryD/o General Administration,Government of Chhattisgarh

iv. Ms. K. Kipgen, Director (SR), DoPT,Government of India

- Chairperson.

-Member

-Member

- Member.

2. The Committee noted that the bifurcation of the States took place 14 years ago andin this regard the Committee in its last meeting advised both the State Governments viz.M.P. and Chhattisgarh to draw a deadline for consideration of new representations.However, no such proposal has been received so far for consideration of the Committee.The Committee impresses upon the same and reiterates that a comprehensive proposalshould be prepared taking into account its implications/ramifications by the Department ofGeneral Administration, M.P. (being nodal Department for SR related work) inconsultation with DOPT, Govt. of India and Department of General Administration,Chhattisgarh. It should be placed before the Committee in its next meeting.

3. The Committee noticed that the cases of Department of Public Health and FamilyWelfare, Department of Ayush and Department of Home are being repeatedly deferred forwant of complete or specific information. The Committee took a serious view of it and hasobserved following:

(i) Department of Public Health and Family Welfare

Administrative Departments submitted that the appeals were required to bepreferred before the Hon 'ble High Court in the cases wherein the Court had quashed theallocation order in respect of the petitioners. However, the Committee observed that thesame has not yet been preferred even after a lapse of 3-4 years. Taking a serious note of itthe Committee desired that all such cases should be re-examined by both the StateGovernments of M.P. and Chhattisgarh after obtaining legal opinion from the Departmentof Law, Govt. of M.P.lChhattisgarh with their mutual consent so that an amicable decision

1

could be arrived at and pending litigations can be disposed of/reduced. Department ofHealth and Family Welfare, Govt. of Chhattisgarh has conveyed its consent on retaining ofdoctors/ employees due for retirement on superannuation within 2 years. The Committeenoted that Directorate of Health, M.P. is also of view that representations of doctors may beconsidered keeping in view the shortage of doctors in M.P. and their retirement onsuperannuation on attaining the age of 65 years.

The Committee further noted that a proposal in this regard is yet to be submitted by theDepartment of Health and Family Welfare, Govt. of M.P. In view of the above, the Committeedesires that this aspect may be comprehensively examined keeping in view itsimplications/ramifications, if any, and a concrete proposal should be formulated/submitted bythe Department of General Administration, Govt. of M.P. in consultation with Department ofGeneral Administration, Govt. of Chhattisgarh and Govt. of India defining specific terms,conditions and modalities of such retention as an exception, only where the Court directed soand Department of Law of State Govt. advised not to go for appeal. This would avoid furtherlitigation and adverse Court's orders/Contempt.

(ii) Department of AYUSH

The Department of Ayush has conveyed that due to shortage of Ayurvedic MedicalOfficers (AMOs) in M.P., they are not in a position to relieve these II AMOs. In themeantime 7 AMOs stood retired on superannuation and the remaining 4 AMOs will beretiring within the next 2-3 years. The Committee noted that vide letter dated 09.02.2015Department of Health and Family Welfare, Govt. of Chhattisgarh has conveyed its consent onretention of doctors/employees going to retire within 2 years and had not joined the State evenafter expiry of 14 years from their allocation to Chhattisgarh because theirrepresentations/Court Cases are pending. Department of Ayush, Govt. of M.P. has alsoconveyed its consent on retention of such AMOs in M.P.

In view of the above, the Committee desires that this aspect may be comprehensivelyexamined keeping in view its implications/ramifications, if any, and a concrete proposalshould be formulated/submitted by the Department of General Administration, Govt. of M.P.in consultation with Department of General Administration, Govt. of Chhattisgarh and Govt.of India defining specific terms, conditions and modalities of such retention as a one-timemeasure.

(iii) Department of Home

The Committee noted that some of the cases are being repeatedly deferred for wantof complete information/comments. The Committee took serious note of it and expressedits displeasure. The Committee desires that GAD, M.P. should compile/seek the commentsfrom the Department of Home and send to the DOPT, Govt. of India for expediting thedisposal of the cases to avoid repeated deferment of the cases.

2

4. In addition, the Committee impressed upon for following:

(i) Complete details of Writ Petitions/Appeals, etc. and updated status of all courtcases (CA filed/Not filed/Disposed, etc.) pending in the various High Courts withfacts/comments on issues/grievances raised/involved shall be furnished by theconcerned Departments within one month from the date of circulation of theminutes to Shri R.N. Chauhan, the Nodal Officer, GAD, M.P. as well as to theCentral Government.

(ii) Concerned Departments may be directed to appoint Officer-in-charge to make allthe relevant records readily available and monitor all the pending Court Cases andinstruct the State Governments Counsels handling these cases to get all the pendingcases duly mentioned/represented before the Courts and take necessary steps forexpediting their disposal.

5. It has also been observed that during last 2-3 meetings of the Advisory Committee, theconcerned Departments could provide details of only about half of the cases mentioned in theagenda items. This lethargic attitude has also been seriously viewed by the Committee anddirected that a time frame must be fixed for providing the details so as to enable theCommittee to consider all pending requests/representations and holisticllogical view could betaken on them.

6. As regards representations for revision of State allocation, the Committee considered77 cases in total. Details are given below:

Total No. of No. of cases No. of No. of No. of cases No. ofNo. cases recommended for cases cases deferred casesof consid acceptance recommend recommen deferredcases ered ed for ded to for want

rejection drop ofcomments

35 13 8 21 6

83 77 !Agenda Item Nos. - Agenda Agenda Agenda Item Agenda8,9,13,15,16,17, Item Nos.- Item Nos.- Nos.- 1,3 to Item18,21,23,28,30,31, 19,26,27, 2,20,22, 7, to, 11, 12, Nos.- 29,33,35,37,38,46,47, 39 to 43, 24,36,49, 14, 25, 32, 34, 45,48,51,)2 to 58, 64 to 68, 72, 62,73,77, 50 & 78. 44,59,60,61, 63 & 71~4,75, 76 & 81. 79& 82 69,70,80 &

83.

3

7. Recommendations of the Committee in each individual case are reflected in the following table:

Sr. Agen Name, Designation, Recommendations of the Advisory CommitteeNo. da Department and

item W.P .IW.A. No.No.

1. Dr. Ramesh KumarNeema,Medical Specialist,0/0 Public Health &Family Welfare(W.P. No. 1836/2007)

In compliance of directions dated 30.11.20 II passedin W.P. No. 183612007 passed by the Hon'ble HighCourt of M.P., Dr. Neema submitted a representationfor revision of his allocation from Chhattisgarh to M.P.of wherein he has raised following grounds:

(i) 65 Medical Specialist (names mentioned inthe representation) junior to him were in thepay scale of Rs. 12000-16500 but wereallocated to M.P. in the pay scale of Rs.10000-15200

(ii) Dr. Ram Chandra Sharma and 23 others(names mentioned in the representation)Specialist doctors junior to him were in thepay scale of Rs. 12000-16500 but wereallocated to M.P.

Administrative Department did not clarifiedretention of doctors junior to Dr. Neema in M.P. andgrant of ACP to above juniors with retrospective effectprior tolon 23.09.2000, notwithstanding the fact thatorders to this effect were issued after publication ofTFAL and they were allocated to M.P. in lower payscale.

The Administrative Department further informedthat DOB of Dr. Neema is 07.09.1954. He is due forretirement on 30.09.2019 on superannuation onattaining the age of 65 years. AdministrativeDepartment further opined that in view of shortage ofspecialist doctors in M.P. appropriate decision may betaken in compliance of Court's directions.

The Committee noted that Dr. Neema has attainedthe age of 61 years but age of retirement for doctors is65 years.

Since the matter is being repeatedly deferred andspecific comments by Administrative Departmentshave not been forthcoming, the Committee viewed that

4

,.

2. Shri Ram Kumar Jatav,Health Supervisor,D/o Public Health &Family Welfare(Representation)

2

both the State Governments should arrive at a practicalsolution/decision. The Committee noted thatDepartment of Health and Family Welfare, Govt. ofChhattisgarh has conveyed its consent on retaining ofdoctors/employees going due for retirement onsuperannuation within 2 years. The Committee alsonoted that Directorate of Health, M.P. is of view totake appropriate decision in compliance of Court'sdirections in the light of shortage of specialist doctorsin M.P.

The Committee further noted that specificproposal for retention of those doctors who alreadyhave attained the age of 60 years is yet to be receivedfrom the Department of Health and Family Welfare,Govt.ofM.P.

In view of the above, the Committee desires thatthe views of the Directorate of Health, M.P. for takingappropriate decision regarding compliance of Court'sdirections in the light of shortage of Specialist doctorsin M.P. may be comprehensively examined keeping inview its implications/ramifications, if any, and aconcrete proposal should be formulated/submitted bythe Department of General Administration, Govt. ofM.P. in consultation with Department of GeneralAdministration, Govt. of Chhattisgarh and Govt. ofIndia defining specific terms, conditions andmodalities of such retention as an exce~ion.The Administrative Department of Shri Jatav informedthat he is a Non-State Cadre employee. Non-StateCadre employees stood allocated to the State wherethey were working as on the appointed day i.e.01. 11.2000. The Committee noted that no separateorders for allocation of Non-State cadre employeewere issued. Therefore, consideration of allocation ofNon-State Cadre employee does not fall within thepurview of Advisory Committee. As such, theCommittee did not consider his representation and thesame was dr~ed from the agenda.

5

3. 3 Dr. Pramod Kumar Dube,Medical Officer,0/0 Public Health &Family Welfare(W.P. No. 2398/2007)

4. 4 Dr. Ashok Kumar Dixit,Medical Specialist,0/0 Public Health &Family Welfare(W.P. No. 499612006)

5. 5 Dr. Krishna Kumar The Administrative Department further informedBhargav, Child Specialist, that all these doctors have already attained the age0/0 Public Health & of 60 years or about to attain the age of 60 years.Family Welfare However they will retire on superannuation on(W.P. No. 1086/2005) attaining the age of 65 years. Administrative~--~--r=--=-=-~------~--~6. 7 Dr. R. P. Srivastava, Department further opined that appropriate decisionMedical specialist, % in compliance of Court's direction in the lightPublic Health & Family shortage of specialist doctors in M.P. may be taken.WelfareW.P. No. 436712007

The Administrative Department informed thatlegal opinion for filing appeals has been soughtfrom the State Govt. Counsel which is yet to bereceived.

The Committee noted that this may bevigorously pursued and it may be kept apprised ofthe present status as well as subsequentdevelopment.

Since the matter is being repeatedly deferredand appeals have not yet been preferred by the StateGovt., the Committee viewed that both the StateGovernments should arrive at a practicalsolution/decision which does not set badprecedent/adverse implications/ramifications. TheCommittee noted that Department of Health andFamily Welfare, Govt. of Chhattisgarh hasconveyed its consent on retaining of doctors/employees due for retirement on superannuationwithin 2 years. The Committee also noted thatDirectorate of Health, M.P. is of view to takeappropriate decision In compliance of Court'sdirections in the light of shortage of specialistdoctors in M.P.

The Committee further noted that specificproposal for retention of those doctors who alreadyhave attained the age of 60 years is yet to bereceived from the Department of Health and FamilyWelfare, Govt. of M.P.

In view of the above, the Committee desires thatthe views of the Department of Health, M.P. fortaking appropriate decision regarding compliance ofCourt's directions the light of shortage of Specialistdoctors in M.P. may be comprehensively examined

6

8. 8 Dr. Kailash ChandraMahajan, AMO,D/oAYUSHW. P. No. 6775/2006

9. 9 Dr. Kunwar Pal Singh,AMO, Dlo AYUSHW. P. No. 6774/2006

10. 10 Dr. Rajesh Joshi,AMO, 0/0 AYUSHW. P. No. 3065/2006

11. 11. Dr. Vishambhar DayalChaturvedi, AMO,0/0 AYUSHW. P. No. 3905/2007

7. 6

The Department of Ayush informed date ofretirement as under:Dr. Rajesh Joshi - 30.06.2019

1-----4---+---------:----:----1 Dr. Vishambhar Dayal Chaturvedi- 30.06.2016Dr. Devendra Pratap Singh Sengar - 30.08.2016Dr. Vishnu Dutt Mishra - 30.06.2016

Shri Bhaiyaram Bhagat,MPW(M)0/0 Public Health &Family WelfareW. P. No. 4043/2005

keeping in view its implicationslramifications, ifany, and a concrete proposal should beformulatedlsubmitted by the Department of GeneralAdministration, Govt. of M.P. in consultation withDepartment of General Administration, Govt. ofChhattisgarh and Govt. of India defining specificterms, conditions and modalities of such retentionas an exception, only where the Court directed soand Department of Law of State Govt. advised notto go for appeal. This would avoid further litigationand adverse Court's orderslContempt.

As seen from the website of the Hon 'ble HighCourt, the writ petition appears to be disposed of on26.09.2005. However, order of the Hon'ble Court isnot available on the website.

The Committee observed that the petitionerappears to be a non-state cadre employee.However, in the absence of order dated 26.09.2005and comments of the Administrative Department,no decision could be arrived at.

The Committee desired that a copy of the orderdated 26.09.2005 be obtained from the Hon'bleCourt by the Administrative Department andfurnished to DOPT alongwith representation of thepetitioner and comments thereon. The Committeedeferred the matter for its next meeting.

The Administrative Department confirmed thatDr. Mahajan retired on 31.01.2015 and Dr. Singhretired on 31.03.2015 on superannuation.

In the light of the above confirmationlfacts, theCommittee recommended that necessary actionwould be taken in accordance with guidelines dated11.08.2008 with regard to dead/retired employeeissued by the Central Government.

7

16

12. 12. Dr. Devendra Pratap Singh The Committee noted that the Department ofSengar, AMO, Ayush is of view to retain these Ayurvedic Medical0/0 AYUSH Officers (AMOs) who have not joined the State ofW. P. No. 3793/2008 Chhattisgarh in compliance of Court's order and~--~--~~~~~~~~----~

13. 14 Dr. Vishnu Dutt Mishra, still working in the State of M.P. Due to shortage ofAMO, % AYUSH AMOs in M.P., they are proposed to have beenW. P. No. 54912006 retained in M.P. '

Since the matter is being repeatedly deferredand specific comments by AdministrativeDepartments have not been forthcoming, theCommittee viewed that both the State Governmentsshould arrive at practical solution/decision whichdoes not set bad precedent/adverseimplications/ramifications. The Committee notedDepartment of Health and Family Welfare, Govt. ofChhattisgarh has conveyed its consent on retainingof doctors/ employees due for retirement onsuperannuation within 2 years.

In view of the above, the Committee desiresthat this aspect may be comprehensively examinedkeeping in view its implications/ramifications, ifany, and a concrete proposal should beformulated/submitted by the Department of GeneralAdministration, Govt. of M.P. in consultation withDepartment of General Administration, Govt. ofChhattisgarh and Govt. of India defining specificterms, conditions and modalities of such retentionas a one-time measure.

Dr. Awadh Bihari Sharma, The Administrative Department confirmed allAMO, % AYUSH, these Ayurvedic Medical Officers retired on

t-:-::-If-:--::---1r-:W=--A-=-:-N_o:-._1:-34:-/-:2_0:-11-:--:---1 superannuation on the dates mentioned against their15. 13 Dr. Kedar Nath Mishra, names as under:

AMO, % AYUSHW. P. No. 1037/2006 Dr. Awadh Bihari Sharma -30.06.2015t-:-::-If-:--:=--~--:~:--:--:~_:_~----~

16. 15 Dr. Mehtab Singh Kaurav, Dr. Kedar Nath Mishra -28.02.2015AMO, % AYUSH, Dr. Mehtab Singh Kaurav -31.12.2011

f-:-:::-t--=-=:-+=-W~A~N-:-:o:..:-. .=.2.:..,:53::::/:;:-20.:..,:1:....:1-=-_:---1Dr. Krishan Kumar Saraiya -31.08.201317. 17 Dr. Krishan Kumar Saraiya, Dr. Aditya Narayan Bajpayee -31.05.2015

AMO, % AYUSH,WP No. 4244/2008

14.

In the light of above confirmation/facts, theCommittee recommended that necessary actionwould be taken in accordance with guidelines dated11.08.2008 with regard to dead/retired employeeissued by the Central Government.

18. 18 Dr. Aditya NarayanBajpayee, AMO, 0/0AYUSH,WP No. 5390/2005

8 I

~

19. 19 Shri Bijendra KumarSharma, Sub-Engineer,0/0 Public Works,W. P. No. 1496/2005

20. 20 Shri Anand Kumar Mishra,Sub-Engineer,0/0 Public Works,W. P. No. 1489/2005

In compliance of directions dated 19.06.2013 ofHon'ble High Court of M.P., Bench at Gwalior, therepresentation of Shri Sharma was considered bythe Committee. Shri Sharma has contended that hisjunior viz. Shri Manoj Jain was allocated to M.P.and his wife Smt. Vijay Lata Sharma is working asShiksha Karmi Varg-I in Government HigherSecondary School, Bhonti, Shivpuri, M.P.

The Administrative Department informed thathis wife viz. Smt. Vijay Lata Sharma is working as'Sanvida Karmi'. She is not a permanentGovernment employee. With regard to allocationof his junior Shri Manoj Jain to M.P., they informedthat Shri Jain was tentatively allocated toChhattisgarh. Later on, he had submitted arepresentation for revision of his allocation fromChhattisgarh to M.P. against his Tentative FinalAllocation. The then Advisory Committeerecommended allocation Shri Manoj Jain to M.P.on the basis of total blindness of his father undermedical hardship category.

In the light of above facts, the Committeerecommended rejection of representation of ShriSharma. A speaking order shall be issuedaccordingly.This case has been deferred since 23r<1 meeting of

the Committee r.e. 20.09.2013 for want ofinformation from the concerned Department.Earlier, the Administrative Department hadsubmitted that appeal is being preferred challengingthe order dated 15.12.2010 of Hon'ble High Courtof M.P. whereby allocation order was quashed.

Now, the Administrative Department hasinformed that the appeal has been preferred beforethe Hon'ble Court challenging the above order ofHon'ble Court which is still pending.

In the light of above position, the Committeerecommended dropping this from the agenda andopined that the matter would be taken up in duecourse of time based on the decision of the Hon 'bleHigh Court subject to outcome of the appeal.

9

21. 21 Shri Rajveer SinghBhadoriya, Sub-Engineer,0/0 Public Works,(W. P. No. 396/2006)

22. 22 Shri Umesh Varma,Constable,0/0 Home(Representation)

23. 23 Shri Gehru Singh Dhurve,Constable,0/0 Home(Representation)

24. 24 Shri Gulab Singh Gahlot,Head Constable,0/0 Home(Representation)

The Administrative department of the petitionerinformed that Shri Bhadoriya died of heart attack on19.01.2015.

In the light of above, the Committeerecommended that necessary action may be taken inaccordance with guidelines dated 11.08.2008 withregard to dead/retired employee issued by theCentral Government.The Administrative Department of Shri Varmainformed that he is a Non-State Cadre employee.Non-State Cadre employees stood allocated to theState where they were working as on the appointedday i.e. 01.11.2000. The Committee noted that noseparate orders for allocation of Non-State cadreemployee were issued. Therefore, consideration ofallocation. of Non-State Cadre employee does notfall within the purview of Advisory Committee. Assuch, the Committee did not consider hisrepresentation and the same was dropped from theagenda.

The Administrative Department confirmed thatShri Dhurve belongs to ST category, IS

domicile/optee of Madhya Pradesh and isemployees of State cadre.

In the light of the above confirmation/facts, theCommittee considered his representation andrecommended revision of allocation of Shri Dhurvefrom Chhattisgarh to M.P. under revised guidelinesdated 24.06.2010 for allocation of SC/STemployees as he belongs to ST category and isdomicile/~tee of M.P.The Administrative Department of Shri Gahlotinformed that he is a Non-State Cadre employee.Non-State Cadre employees stood allocated to theState where they were working as on the appointedday i.e. 01.11.2000. The Committee noted that noseparate orders for allocation of Non-State cadreemployee were issued. Therefore, consideration ofallocation of Non-State Cadre employee does notfall within the purview of Advisory Committee. Assuch, the Committee did not consider hisrepresentation and the same was dropped from theagenda.

10

25. 25 Shri Jitendra SinghChauhan,Company Commander,D/o Home,WA No. 400/2011

While disposing of the Writ Appeal on07.03.2014, the Hon'ble High Court of MP, benchat Gwalior directed the Central Government toreconsider the representation made earlier by thepetitioner, pass speaking order and communicatethe same to the petitioner within a period of 60 daysfrom the date of receipt of certified copy of order.

The Committee noted that the AdministrativeDepartment has only placed the representation ofShri Chauhan before it. It has not furnishedcomments on the grounds raised by Shri Chauhan inhis representation. In absence of the comments ofAdministrative Department, the Committee did notconsider the representation and directed theAdministrative Department to furnish theircomments to the Central Government.

In the light of above, the Committee deferredthe matter for its next meeting.

26. 26 Shri Brij Kishor Dharvan, They have submitted their representations forHead Constable (Radio), revision of allocation from Chhattisgarh to Madhya0/0 Home Pradesh stating that they had opted for the State of(R~esentation) M.P. but were allocated to Chhattisgarh against~--~--~~~--~--~~----~

27. 27 Shri Aditya Kumar their option. Their seniority was not fixed as perSharma, Constable existing rules of State Government. Therefore, they(Radio), % Home became junior and accordingly allocated to(Representation) Chhattisgarh on juniority basis. They are facing

financial, mental and family related problems.

The Administrative Department informed thatShri Dharvan and Shri Sharma were allocated toChhattisgarh on juniority basis (A-4 category) in'Kramonnat' pay scale.

The Committee observed that familycircumstances and financial problems are notcovered by the guidelines of allocation. TheCommittee further observed that they wereallocated to Chhattisgarh in accordance with extantrules/guidelines for allocation as clarified by theAdministrative Department.

In the light of above, the Committeerecommended rejection of representations of Shri .Dharvan and Shri Sharma.

11

28. 28 Shri Braham DevPachauri, Head Constable(Radio Operator),D/oHomeW.P. No. 437/2007

29. 29 Shri Shivendra Upadhyay,Constable,D/o Home,W.P. No. 1423/2009

30. 30 Shri Munnalal Karade,A.S.I.,0/0 Home(Representation)

The Administrative Department confirmed thatShri Pachauri retired on 31.01.2013 onsuperannuation.

In the light of above facts, the Committeerecommended that necessary action would be takenin accordance with guidelines dated 11.08.2008with regard to dead/retired employee issued by theCentral Government.

As seen from the website ofHon'ble High Courtof M.P. at Jabalpur, the writ petition filed by thepetition appears to have been disposed of on11.02.2013 with disposal remarks "infructuous".

The Committee observed that the petitioner hadfiled the above petition challenging non-consideration of his application for mutual transferwith Shri Rajesh Muskole. The Committee furtherobserved that the Administrative Department failedto furnish certified copy of order dated 11.02.2013passed by the Court, representation of petitioner andcomments thereon.

The Committee noted that a certified copy oforder dated 11.02.2013 may be obtained from theHon'ble Court by the Administrative Departmentand furnished to Central Government alongwithrepresentation and comments thereon for furtherexamination. The Committee accordingly deferredthe matter for its next meeting.

The Administrative Department confirmed thatthey belong to SC category, are domicile/optee ofMadhya Pradesh and are employees of State cadre.

31. 31 Shri Balram Singh In the light of the above facts, the CommitteeBaghel, S.1. (Radio), considered their representations and recommendedD/o Home revision of allocation of Shri Karade, Shri Bhaghel

1------l1------l~(~R.;;.:eL..:..Plre:..=s..:c..en:..=t:;.:.:a~ti-=-on:.::..I)~---_Iand Shri Ahirwar from Chhattisgarh to M.P. under32. 33 Shri Inder Lal Ahirwar, revised guidelines dated 24.06.2010 for allocation

Subedar, of SC/ST employees as they belong to SC category010 Home, and are domicile/optee of M.P.(Representation)

33. 32 Shri Rajkumar Sharma,Constable (Radio),D/o Home,(Representation)

Shri Sharma has submitted a representation forrevision of State allocation from Chhattisgarh toMadhya Pradesh. He had opted for M.P. but he wasallocated to Chhattisgarh against his option. He is

12

34. 34 Shri ShivakantConstableD/o(Representation)

Tiwari,(GO),Home,

35. 35 Shri Rajeev Thakur,S.1. (Radio),0/0 Home,(Representation)

domicile of district Muraina, M.P. He has to lookafter his old aged and ill parents. His family isresiding at Muraina M.P. He has to take care of hisfamily. His wife is working as Shiksha Karmi inM.P.

The Administrative Department confirmed thatShri Thakur and Shri Kunjam belong to STcategory, had opted for M.P. and are domicile ofM.P. They are employees of state cadre.

The Administrative Department has informedthat Shri Sharma was allocated to Chhattisgarhagainst his option for M.P. on juniority basis undergeneral category in kramonnat pay scale. However,the Administrative Department did not confirmcadre, post, place of posting, date of appointment,etc. in respect of wife ofShri Sharma.

Taking note of above, the Committee deferredthe matter for its next meeting and instructed theAdministrative Department to furnish the desiredinformation to the Central Government.

Shri Tiwari has submitted a representation forrevision of allocation form Chhattisgarh to M.P. Hehas mentioned in his representation that he isdomicile of District Rewa, M.P. His wife issuffering from Epilepsy. Nobody is in his family tolook after his old age parents.

The Administrative Department has furnishedtheir comments stating that there is vacancy for thepost of Constable in M.P. Vi. Sa. Bal and has givenconsent on revision of allocation of Shri Tiwari toM.P.

The Committee observed that theAdministrative Department has not furnished thecomplete information viz. Cadre, option, Date ofappointment, etc. supported by TFAL in respect ofShri Tiwari.

Taking note of above, the Committee deferredthe matter for its next meeting and instructed theAdministrative Department to furnish the desiredinformation to the Central Government.

13

39. 39 Shri Bachchan Singh,Constable,0/0 Home,(Representation)

36. 38

37. 36

38. 37

Govind

Shri Shivaji Kunjam,Head Constable (Radio),0/0 Home,(Representation)

ShriMarkam,Head Constable,Dlo Home,(Representation) .

Shri Jawahar Lal Sisodia,S.1. (Executive),0/0 Home,(Representation)

Singh

In the light of the above facts, the Committeeconsidered their representations and recommendedrevision of allocation of Shri Thakur and ShriKunjam from Chhattisgarh to M.P. under revisedguidelines dated 24.06.2010 for allocation ofSC/STemployees as they belong to ST category and aredomicile/optee of M.P.The Administrative Department of Shri Markaminformed that he is a Non-State Cadre employee.Non-State Cadre employees stood allocated to theState where they were working as on the appointedday i.e. 01.11.2000. The Committee noted that noseparate orders for allocation of Non-State cadreemployee were issued. Therefore, consideration ofallocation of Non-State Cadre employee does notfall within the purview of Advisory Committee. Assuch, the Committee did not consider hisrepresentations and the same were dropped from theagenda.

The Administrative Department confirmed thatShri Sisodia belongs to SC category, isdomicile/optee of Madhya Pradesh and isemployees of State cadre.

In the light of the above facts, the Committeeconsidered his representation and recommendedrevision of allocation of Shri Sisodia fromChhattisgarh to M.P. under revised guidelines dated24.06.2010 for allocation ofSC/ST employees as hebelongs to SC category and is domicile/optee ofM.P.

Shri Singh submitted a representation forrevision of allocation form Chhattisgarh to M.P. Hehas mentioned in his representation that he hadopted for M.P. but was allocated to Chhattisgarhagainst his option. He is domicile of M.P. His wifeis suffering from incurable kidney disease and isunder treatment at Bhopal, M.P. He has to lookafter his old aged parents and seriously ill wife. Heis facing difficulties in discharging his liabilities.

The Administrative Department has informedthat Shri Singh was allocated to Chhattisgarhagainst his option for M.P. on juniority basis undergeneral category in 'gair Kramonnat' pay scale.

40. 40 Shri Devendra PrasadRai, A.S.I., % Home,(Representation)

41. 41 Shri Azad MohammadQureshi, A.S.I., 0/0Home (Representation)

In the light of above, the Committee noted thatgrounds raised by Shri Singh and mereoption/domicile do not confer a right for hisallocation to M.P. The grounds raised by him arenot covered under the existing guidelines ofallocation. Therefore, the Committee recommendedrejection of his representation for revision ofallocation from Chhatti~arh to M.P.

Shri Rai submitted a representation for revisionof allocation form Chhattisgarh to M.P. He hasmentioned in his representation that he had optedfor M.P. but was allocated to Chhattisgarh againsthis option. He is domicile of M.P. and belongs toOBC category. His wife is suffering from heartdisease and is under treatment at Birla Hospital,Ujjain, M.P. She had once suffered from heartattack.

The Administrative Department has informedthat Shri Rai was allocated to Chhattisgarh againsthis option for M.P. on juniority basis under OBCcategory in 'Kramaunnat' pay scale.

In the light of above, the Committee noted thatgrounds' raised by Shri Rai and mereoptions/domicile do not confer a right for hisallocation to M.P. The grounds raised by him arenot covered under the existing guidelines ofallocation. Therefore, the Committeerecommended rejection of his representation forrevision of allocation from Chhattisgarh to M.P.

Shri Qureshi has submitted a representation forrevision of allocation form Chhattisgarh to M.P. Hehas contended that he is domicile of M.P. He hadfracture of femur neck and had undergone surgeryand as such he is incapable to perform his dutieswhich include travelling from his residence inMadhya Pradesh to Chhattisgarh. He is only malemember to look after his family and his old aged illmother.

The Administrative Department has informedthat Shri Qureshi was allocated to Chhattisgarhagainst his option for M.P. on juniority basis in'gair kramonnat' pay scale.

15

42. 42 Shri Hamir Singh,Constable,0/0 Home,(Representation)

43. 43 Shri NiranjanVishwakarma,A.S.1. (Radio),DloHome(Representation)

In the light of above, the Committee noted thatthe grounds are not covered under the existingguidelines of allocation. Therefore, the Committeerecommended rejection of his representation forrevision of allocation from Chhattisaarh to M.P

Shri Singh has submitted a representation forrevision of allocation form Chhattisgarh to M.P. Hehas mentioned in his representation that he hadopted for M.P. but was allocated to Chhattisgarhagainst his option. He is domicile of M.P. and hisancestral property and family is in Madhya Pradesh.He is unable to discharge his liability of family andhis old age mother.

The Administrative Department has informedthat Shri Singh was allocated to Chhattisgarhagainst his option for M.P. on juniority basis inOBC category.

In the light of above, the Committee noted thatfamily circumstances and mere optionsl domicile donot confer a right for his allocation to M.P. Thegrounds raised by Shri Singh are not covered underthe existing guidelines of allocation. Therefore, theCommittee recommended rejection of hisrepresentation for revision of allocation fromChhattisgarh to M.P.

Shri Vishwakarma has submitted arepresentation for revision of allocation formChhattisgarh to M.P. He has mentioned in hisrepresentation that he had opted for M.P. but wasallocated to Chhattisgarh against his option. Hiswife had undergone open heart surgery on27.10.2012 at Escort Heart Institute, Delhi. He isfacing financial problem and is unable to dischargehis social duties. His presence at his residence inM.P. is necessary to look after his family.

The Administrative Department has informedthat Shri Vishwakarma was allocated toChhattisgarh against his option for M.P. onjuniority basis in 'karamonnat' pay scale.

In the light of above, the Committee noted thatthe grounds raised by Shri Vishwakarma are not :covered under the existing guidelines of allocation.

16

44. 44 Shri Arun KumarTripathi, Head Constable(Radio Operator),0/0 Home,W A No. 42812012

45. 45 Shri Shivcharan SinghParihar,Subedar,D/oHomeW P. No. 12957/2010

Therefore, the Committee recommended rejectionof his representation for revision of allocation fromChhattisgarh to M.P.

While passing the directions dated 15.12.2010in W.P. No. 2010/2005, the Hon'ble High Court ofM.P., Bench at Gwalior quashed the allocationorder of the petitioner to the State of Chhattisgarhbecause the petitioner had been serving in the Stateof M.P. after his allocation to Chhattisgarh for last10 years in pursuance to the Stay order. TheHon'ble Court further opined that it would not bejust and proper to again refer the matter to theappropriate Government for deciding therepresentation of the petitioner.

This case was placed before the advisoryCommittee in its meeting held on 13.07.2012. TheCommittee recommended to file a writ appealagainst the above said judgment dated 15.12.2010.Accordingly, the State Government preferred anappeal challenging the above order dated15.12.2010.

The Administrative Department informed thatwrit appeal No. 428/2012 preferred by the StateGovernment was dismissed by the Hon'ble Courton 25.07.2012 for being time barred.

The Committee desired that action taken reportbe submitted to the Central Government in the lightof dismissal of writ appeal by the Hon'ble Court.GADIAdmin Department may also seek legalopinion and place the matter before the CentralGovernment, for further course of action.

While disposing of W.P. No. 12957/2010 on09.12.2014, the Hon'ble Court granted liberty to thepetitioner to submit a fresh representation toRespondent No.7 (Union of India). The Hon'bleCourt directed Union of India to consider anddecide the representation of the petitioner,preferably within a period of three months from thedate of receipt of certified copy of the order, bypassing a speaking order.

The Committee observed that theAdministrative Department failed to furnish a copy

17

of writ petition, representation of petitioner andcomments thereon. The Committee instructed thata certified copy of order dated 9.12.2014 and W. P.12957/2010 be obtained from the Hon'ble Court bythe Administrative Department and furnished toCentral Government alongwith representation andcomments thereon for further examination.

In the light of above, the Committee deferredthe matter for its next meeting.

47. 47 Shri Santosh KumarPurniya, Constable,D/oHome,(Representation)

48. 48 Shri Mazhar Khan, HeadConstable, 0/0 Home,(Representation)

46. 46 Shri Lokram Kakoriya,Constable, D/o Home(Representation)

The Administrative Department confirmed thatShri Kakoria belongs to ST category, isdomicile/optee of Madhya Pradesh and isemployees of State cadre.

In the light of the above facts, the Committeeconsidered his representation and recommendedrevision of allocation of Shri Kakoria fromChhattisgarh to M.P. under revised guidelines dated24.06.2010 for allocation ofSC/ST employees as hebelongs to ST category and is domicile/optee ofM.P.

The Administrative Department has confirmedthat Shri Purnia belongs to SC category, had optedfor M.P. and is domicile of Hoshangabad, M.P.

In the light of the above facts, the Committeeconsidered his representation and recommendedrevision of allocation of Shri Purniya fromChhattisgarh to M.P. under revised guidelines dated24.06.2010 for allocation of SC/ST employees as hebelongs to SC category and is domicile/optee ofM.P.

Shri Khan submitted a representation forrevision of State allocation from Chhattisgarh toM.P. under spouse policy. His wife viz. Smt.Anjum Bano is working under Government of M.P.

The Administrative Department failed to furnishtheir comments. In the light of above, theCommittee deferred the matter for its next meeting.

49. 49 Shri Lakhan Lal Patel, In compliance of directions dated 18.11.2009 ofI-----<I--_t-P_e:-'o-:-n-::-,-:-O_/o--:-::-R_e_v...;,..en...;,..u--c:e-l Hon'ble High Court of Chhattisgarh, Shri Patel and50. 50 Shri Sharif Khan, Peon, Shri Khan submitted their representations for

D/o Revenue revision of allocation from Chhattisgarh to M.P.W. P. No. 1145/2009 They contended that they are class IV employee and

18

52. 52 Shri Mahesh KumarPandey, BOO,0/0 SC&ST WelfareW A No. 728/2010

51. 51 Shri Sanjay Kumar Godale,Principal,0/0 Tribal Welfare(Representation)

opted for M.P.

Department of General Administration,Government of M.P. informed that both theemployees are posted in the State of Chhattisgarh.Department of Revenue, Government ofChhattisgarh has informed that Shri Sharif Khan isnot willing to be re-allocated to M.P. due to hisensuing retirement on 30.06.2015. They havefurther informed that Shri Lakhan Patel has alsowithdrawn his request for his allocation to M.P. Theabove position has been confirmed by the 0/0Commissioner Land Records, Chhattisgarh.

In the light of above, the Committeerecommended dropping this case from the agendasince Shri Khan and Shri Patel withdrew theirrespective requests. The Committee furtherrecommended that a communication in this regardbe sent by the Central Government to them throughtheir Administrative Department as the Court'sorder dated 18.11.2009 is to be complied with.

Shri Godale submitted a representation forrevision of allocation from Chhattisgarh to M.P.under revised policy dated 24.06.2010 for SC/STemployee. He belongs to SC category and isdomicileloptee of M.P.

Department of Tribal Welfare, M.P. informedthat Shri Godale is posted in the State ofChhattisgarh. His service records are available withGovernment of Chhattisgarh which has beeninstructed vide letter dated 30.05.2015 to furnishtheir comments to Central Government.

Since the matter is being repeatedly deferred,the Committee took serious note of is and desiredthat the information be obtained from the Govt. ofChhattisgarh by Govt. of M.P.lGAD and furnishedto the Central Govt. The Committee deferred thematter for its next meeting

This case was placed before the advisorycommittee in its 15th meeting held on 29.12.2010 incompliance of direction dated 17.08.2009 passed inWP No. 956/2005. The Hon'ble Court held that thepetitioner has raised a genuine ground about his

19

53. 53 Shri T. S. Chakradhari,Sub-Engineer,0/0 Water Resources(Representation)

placement against Mr. Sant Saran Singh and RajKumar Joshi and have not been by the respondents.Hence, the allocation of the petitioner to the state ofChhattisgarh is illegal.

In view of above the case was considered by thecommittee which recommended as under.-

"The representative of Admin Department ofthe petitioner informed that the seniority of thepetitioners in the light of the directions of Hon 'bleHigh Court is under consideration and consequentupon change in seniority he is likely to be eligiblefor change of state cadre from Chhattisgarh to MP.The committee decided that the state Governmentshould rectify the seniority of the petitioner andthereafter send the proposal regarding eligibility ofchange of state cadre of the petitioner. "

The Administrative Department informed thatWrit Appeal No. 72812010 challenging the orderdated 17.08.2009 has been rejected by the Hon'bleCourt for being barred by limitations vide its orderdated 05.03.20]4.

In the light of submission of AdministrativeDepartment, in compliance of court's directiondated ]7.08.2009, the Committee recommendedrevision of allocation of Shri Mahesh KumarPandey, BOO from Chhattisgarh to M.P. becausehis junior Shri Raj Kumar Joshi has been allocatedto M.P.

The Administrative Department of ShriChakradhari has confirmed the authenticity of castecertificate issued by Department of Tribal Welfareand domicile of Shri Chakradhari i.e. Rewa, M.P.They have already confirmed that he belongs to SCcategory.

In the light of the above facts, the Committeeconsidered his representation and recommendedrevision of allocation of Shri Chakradhari fromChhattisgarh to M.P. under revised guidelines dated24.06.20] 0 for allocation of SC/ST employees as hebelongs to SC category and is domicile/optee ofM.P.

20

Shri Rameshwar DayalGaur,Sub-Engineer,D/o Water ResourcesW.A. No. 712/2008 In the light of above facts, the Committee

1--~f-~-=R:..:..=..P-=N...:...o:...:.....::2:...:..7..:..0/:...:2:..:0..:..0.::....9.....j recommended that necessary action would be takenShri Bhagat Singh Sankhla, in accordance with guidelines dated 11.08.2008Sub-Engineer, with regard to dead/retired employee issued by theD/o Water Resources Central Government.W P No. 1958/ 2005Shri Mukul Jain,Asstt. Engineer,D/o Water ResourcesW P No. 1907/2009

The Administrative Department confirmed thatShri Gaur retired on 31.08.2014 and Shri Sankhlaretired on 30.04.2014 on superannuation.

54. 54

55. 55

56.. 56 In compliance of directions dated 07.12.2009 ofHon'ble High Court of M.P. the representation ofShri Mukul Jain was considered by the AdvisoryCommittee in its meeting held on 24.04.2011. TheCommittee recommended that "it was informed bythe representatives of Department of the petitionerthat issue of seniority of Assistant Engineers ispending in the Hon'ble Supreme Court. There is aninterim order for maintaining the status quo. Theyalso stated that further action on the representationof the petitioner in the light of directions dated07.12.2009 of Hon'ble High Court would bepossible after the final judgment of Supreme Court.The Committee, therefore, decided to accept thesubmission of representative in the meeting forkeeping this case pending till the final decision ofthe Hon'ble Supreme Court on the seniority issuesof Assistant Engineers."

The Administrative Department has informedthat seniority rank of Shri Jain was amended from2014 to1710. In view of revision of his seniorityrank, Shri Jain was promoted to the post ofExecuti ve Engineer vide order dated 29.11.2013issued by WRD, Madhya Pradesh. TheAdministrative Department further informed thatShri Jain is working as Executive Engineer in theState of M.P. consequent upon his promotion.Now, no action is pending/required in the matter.

In the light of the above submission ofAdministrative Department and Department ofGeneral Administration, Govt. of M.P., incompliance of directions dated 07.12.2009 ofHon'ble High Court of M.P., the Committeeconsidered the representation and recommended

21

57. 57 Shri Devendra KumarSharma, Sub-Engineer,0/0 Water ResourcesW PNo. 367312008

58. 58 Shri C. D. Thakre,Asstt. Engineer,0/0 Water Resources,W.P. 7734/2010

59. 59 Shri Narendra KumarGupta,Asstt. Engineer,0/0 Water ResourcesWP No. 3821/2005

revision of allocation of Shri Jain from Chhattisgarhto M.P.

The Administrative Department confirmed thatShri Shrama retired on 30.06.2013 onsuperannuation.

In the light of above facts, the Committeerecommended that necessary action would be takenin accordance with guidelines dated 11.08.2008with regard to deadlretired employee issued by theCentral Government.

The Administrative Department has informedthat seniority rank of Shri Thakre was amendedfrom 1844 to 1629. In view of revision of hisseniority rank, Shri Thakre was promoted to thepost of Executive Engineer vide order dated21.05.2012 issued by WRD, Madhya Pradesh. TheAdministrative Department further informed thatShri Thakre is working as Executive Engineer in theState of M.P. consequent upon his promotion.Now, no action is pending/required in the matter.

In the light of the above submission ofAdministrative Department and Department ofGeneral Administration, Govt. of M.P., incompliance of directions dated 28.6.2010 ofHon'ble High Court of M.P., the Committeeconsidered the representation and recommendedrevision of allocation of Shri Thakre fromChhattisgarh to M.P.

In compliance of directions dated 14.12.2005 ofHon'ble High Court of M.P. the representation ofShri Gupta was considered by the AdvisoryCommittee in its meeting held on 29.12.2010.

The Committee recommended that "it wasinformed by the representatives of Department inthe meeting that seniority of Assistant Engineers ispending for decision in the Hon 'ble Supreme Courtand there is an order of Hon 'ble Court that thestatus quo is to be maintained. So the Committeedecided to keep this case pending for change ofState allocation till the seniority related case isdecided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court."

22

60. 60 Shri Prakash ChandraSharma, Sub-Engineer,0/0 Water Resources,R P No. 299/2013

The Administrative Department has nowinformed that no case relating to seniority of ShriGupta is pending before the Supreme Court. Theinformation earlier furnished by the AdministrativeDepartment to the Committee is incorrect. Actually,Shri Gupta has to submit a representation incompliance of court's directions dated 14.12.2005.No representation has yet been received from ShriGupta. Therefore, no action is pending on the partof State Government.

In the light of above, the Committee desired thatrepresentation be sought from Shri Gupta and re-examined in the light of Court's directions. TheCommittee deferred the matter for its next meeting.

While disposing of W.P. No. 286812005, theHon'ble High Court of M.P. Bench at Gwaliorquashed on 03.07.2007 the order with regard toallocation of petitioner to the State of Chhattisgarh.The above said order dated 03.07.2007 waschallenged by the State Government by preferringWA No. 299/2009. The appeal was dismissed bythe Court with a liberty to the State to prefer aReview Petition against the order dated 03.07.2007.Accordingly, the State Government preferredReview Petition No. 299/2013. The Review Petitionwas also dismissed on 07.02.2014 by the Hon'bleCourt recording that the State did not mentionsufficient cause for delay. The application forcondemnation of delay was also rejected.

The Administrative Department informed thatSLP has been filed before the Hon'ble SupremeCourt of India challenging the High Court's orderwhich is pending before the APEX Court.

Subsequently it has been noted by the DOPT,Govt. of India that SLP No. 14785-14786/2015filed by the State Govt. has been disposed by theHon'ble Supreme Court on 04.09.2015. Judgementdated 04.09.2015 is not available on the website ofthe Hon'ble Court.

In the light of the above, the Committee desiredthat a copy of the order dated 04.09.2015 beobtained from the Hon'ble Court. The matter would

23

61. 61 Shri Rajendra SinghBhadoriya,Sub-Engineer,D/oPHE,W A No. 32112011

be considered in compliance of the Hon 'ble APEXCourt's directions.

While disposing of writ appeal on 13.03.2014,the Hon'ble High Court directed the CentralGovernment to re-consider the representation madeearlier by the petitioner against his allocation, andpass speaking order and communicate the same tohim. The petitioner raised the following grounds inhis earlier representation:-

(i) He is domicile of M.P., also had opted forM.P. but was allocated to Chhattisgarhagainst his option.

(ii) His juniors viz. Shri Ghanshyam Aggarwal(SrI. No. 1358), Shri Satish Prakash Sahu(SrI. No. 1369), Shri Kailash ChandraPansari (SrI. No. 1362), Shri K GMaheshwari (SrI. No. 697), Shri P K Saxena(SrI. No. 699), Shri S K Kureshi (SrI. No.703), Shri Ram ji Tripathy (SrI. NO. 706),Shri R K Pathak (SrI. No. 708), Shri V KSharma (SrI. No. 709), Shri R K Srivastava(SrI. No. 714), Shri V K Aggarwal (SrI. No.715) and Shri K P Kushwaha (SrI. No. 716)were allocated to State of Madhya Pradesh.

(iii)Allocation of Sub-Engineers to the State ofChhattisgarh was made in excess to the laiddown percentage of26.23.

The Administrative Department informed thatShri K G Maheshwari (SrI. No. 697), Shri P KSaxena (SrI. No. 699), Shri S A Kureshi (SrI. No.703), Shri Ram ji Tripathy (SrI. NO. 706), Shri R KPathak (SrI. No. 708), Shri V K Sharma (SrI. No.709), Shri R K Srivastava (SrI. No. 714), Shri Y KAggarwal (SrI. No. 715) and Shri K P Kushwaha(SrI. No. 716) were allocated to M.P. on mutualtransfer basis. They have further informed thatShri Ghanshyam Aggarwal (SrI. No. 1358), ShriSatish Prakash Sahu (SrI. No. 1369), Shri KailashChandra Pansari (SrI. No. 1362) were allocated toM.P. on the basis of seniority in lower pay scalei.e. Rs. 6500-10500/-.

The Committee noted that 3 juniors to ShriBhadoriya were allocated to M.P. in lower payscale. The Committee desired whether above said 3

24

juniors were given benefit of ACP withretrospective effect prior to/on 23.09.2000 however,orders to this effect were issued after publication ofTFAL.

The Committee desired to relook/revisit thematter and deferred it for next meeting.

62. 62 Shri Ravindra NathParashar,Sub-Engineer,Dlo PHEW P No. 1424/2011

While disposing of the Writ petition on 30.11.13the Hon 'ble High Court the MP bench at Gwaliorquashed the reliving order dated 03.02.2011 issuedby Engineer-in-Chief, PHE, Bhopal in respect ofShri Parashar for Chhattisgarh. The Hon 'ble Courtfurther granted liberty to the respondents to passfresh order if any accordance with law. Thepetitioner raised the following grounds in his earlierrepresentation:-

(i) He is domicile of M.P., also had opted forM.P. but was allocated to Chhattisgarhagainst his option.

(ii) His parents are old aged and he is only malemember to look after his family.

(iii)His juniors viz. Shri P K Saxena and Shri VK Aggarwal were allocated to State ofMadhya Pradesh.

(iv)Sub-Engineers figuring at SrI. No. 856A,871 and other Sub-Engineers who wereplaced below in the gradation list wereretained in the State ofM.P.

(v) He has been working in the State of M.P. formore than 10 years after the final allocation.

The Administrative Department informed thatShri P K Saxena and Shri Y K Aggarwal wereallocated to M.P. on mutual transfer basis. TheCommittee noted that the contention of petitionerfor allocation of his juniors to M.P. is not valid andother grounds raised by petitioner are not coveredby the guidelines of allocation and does not confer aright to the petitioner for his allocation to M.P.

In the light of submission of AdministrativeDepartment, the Committee recommended rejectionof representation of Shri Parashar. A speaking ordershall be issued accordingly by the CentralGovernment.

25

63. 63 Shri Ravi Prakash Bajpai,Sub-Engineer,D/oPHEW P No. 2698/2005W P No. 1425/2011

In compliance of directions dated 12.04.2010 ofHon'ble High Court of M.P. passed in W P No.2698/ 2005, the representation of Shri Bajpai wasconsidered by the Advisory Committee in its is"meeting held on 29.12.2010 and the Committeerecommended rejection of representation ofpetitioner. The Committee further recommendedthat the draft speaking order would be prepared bythe Administrative Department countering all thepoints raised by the petitioner in his representation.The Administrative Department could notclarify/justify allocation of juniors to MadhyaPradesh in draft speaking order. Therefore, theAdministrative Department was again instructed tore-examine the allocation of his juniors to M. P.

In the meantime, Shri Bajpai filed another writpetition No. 1425/2011. While disposing of theWrit petition on 30.11.13 the Hon'ble High Courtof MP Bench at Gwalior quashed the reliving orderdated 03.02.2011 issued by Engineer-in-Chief,PHE, Bhopal in respect of Shri Bajpai forChhattisgarh. The Hon'ble Court further grantedliberty to the respondent to pass fresh order if anyaccordance with law. Shri Bajpai has contendedthat his juniors were allocated to M.P.

The Administrative department did not furnishtheir fresh comments with regard to allocation ofhis juniors to M.P. The Committee noted thatjuniors to Shri Bajpai were allocated to M.P. inlower pay scale. The Committee instructed to theAdministrative Department to clarify as to whetherabove said juniors were given benefit of ACP withretrospective effect prior to/on 23.09.2000 however,orders to this effect were issued after publication ofTFAL.

The Committee desired to re-Iook/revisit thematter and deferred for its next meeting.

Shri C. L. Kosta, The Administrative Department confirmedSub-Engineer, D/o PHE that Shri Kosta retired on 31.03.2013 and Shri

1--:----l1-::-:--I-W-:-:-P-:--N_o_.::-:-4-,-9_1.....8/-2-0-0..,...5--:-----lTiwari retired on 31.07.2013 on superannuation.65. 65 Shri Jagdish Prasad Tiwari,

Sub-Engineer, D/o PHE,W P No. 1334/2011

64. 64

In the light of above facts, the Committeerecommended that necessary action would be

26

-----

66. 66 Shri N.K. Bulchandani,Sub-Engineer,0/0 PHE(Representation)

67. 67

68. 68

Shri Darn Lal Swarnkar,Sub-Engineer,D/oPHEW.A. No. 676/2012

Shri Rakesh Kumar Goyal,Sub-Engineer,D/o PHElR~resentati()l!l

taken in accordance with guidelines dated11.08.2008 with regard to dead/retired employeeissued by_theCentral Government.

Shri BuIchandani submitted a representationfor revision of State allocation from Chhattisgarhto M.P. under spouse policy. He has mentioned inhis representation that his wife Smt. DeepaBulchandani is working as Head TelephoneOperator in State Bank of India, Sultania RoadBranch, Bhopal, M.P. since 27.08.1984. Insupport of his claim, he has attached a certificateissued by State Bank of India with representation.

The Administrative Department of ShriBulchandani informed that he had opted for Stateof M.P. and his services were tentatively allocatedto State of M.P. However, after tentativeallocation on the basis of mutual transfer, he wasfinally allocated to Chhattisgarh.

The Committee observed that ShriBulchandani has represented that his wife Smt.Deepa Bulchani has been working in State Bankof India, Bhopal since 27.08.1984. TheCommittee further observed that he is eligible forallocation to opted State as per revised guidelinesdated 24.03.2008 under spouse policy.

In the light of above, the Committeerecommended revision of allocation of ShriBulchandani from Chhattisgarh to M.P. underspouse policy as per revised guidelines dated24.03.2008.

The Administrative Department confirmedthat Shri Swamkar retired on 31.01.2014 onsuperannuation.

In the light of above facts, the Committeerecommended that necessary action would betaken in accordance with guidelines dated11.08.2008 with regard to dead/retired employeeissued b-.l the Central Government.

The Administrative Department confirmed thatShri Goyal belongs to SC category, isdomicile/optee of Madhya Pradesh and isem2I~ees of State cadre.

27

In the light of the above facts, the Committeeconsidered his representation and recommendedrevision of allocation of Shri Goyal fromChhattisgarh to M.P. under revised guidelinesdated 24.06.2010 for allocation of SC/STemployees as he belongs to SC category and isdomicileloptee of M.P.

69. 69 Shri Attar Singh Rajput, While passing the directions dated 15.12.2010,RHEO, the Hon'ble High Court of M.P., Bench at GwaliorDlo Horticulture quashed the allocation order of the petitioners to

1----I---t-W--'-._p_"N--'-0.;....I:....:I...,;..5_9_1 2__0--:-0-:.5__ -1the Chhattisgarh because the petitioners had been70. 70 Shri Chander Shekhar serving in the State of M.P. aftertheir allocation to

Rajput, RHEO, Chhattisgarh for last I° years in pursuance to theDlo Horticulture stay order. The Hon'ble Court further held that itW P No. 1161/2005 would not be just and proper to again refer the

matter to the appropriate Government for decidingthe representation of the petitioners.

71. 71 Shri Vinod Singh Tomar,SHDO,Dlo HorticultureW PNo. 1189/2005

The representative of DOPT, Govt. of Indiainformed that during discussion withrepresentative of Department of Horticulture in ameeting held on 03.09.20] 2, the AdministrativeDepartment was advised to file writ appeal againstthe above judgment dated 15.l2.201O.TheAdministrative Department informed that JointDirector, Horticulture, Gwalior has beenappointed OIC in the matter for filing writ appealbefore the Court.

In the light of submission of theAdministrative Department, the Committeeinstructed to file writ appeals accordingly andintimate after filing the same.

As seen from the website of Hon'bIe HighCourt, the writ petition appears to be disposed ofon 06.02.2008. However, copy of direction dated06.02.08 and representation of petitioner are notavailable in this department. In absence ofrepresentation as well as court's order dated06.02.2008, the Central Government is not in aposition to examine the matter and take necessaryaction.

The Committee noted that Admin.D~artment has been repeatedly requested to

28

, . , .

72. 72 Shri Ramendra Singh Bais,RAEO,0/0 AgricultureW A No. 774/2012

furnish a copy of order dated 06.02.08 andrepresentation received from petitioner along withtheir comments Irecommendation. However, theyfailed to furnish the same. The Committee tookserious note of it and expressed its displeasure.

The Committee further instructed -theAdministrative Department to furnish a copy oforder dated 06.02.2008 and representation of thepetitioner alongwith comments without anyfurther delay so that the same can be considered innext meeting. The Committee accordinglydeferred the matter.

The Hon'ble High Court dismissed the WritAppeal 774/2012 on 14.12.12 for being barred bylimitations. The said appeal was preferred beforethe Hon'ble High Court of MP bench at Gwaliorchallenging the order dated 15.12.2010 passed inWP No. 1383/06. Wherein the Hon'ble Courtheld that no reasons were assigned by the CentralGovernment while rejecting the representation andsince the petitioner has continued in service in theState of M.P. for last about ten years on thestrength of interim order passed by this court, thematter need not be remanded back for decidingthe representation again.

The Committee observed that in view of aboveposition, the directions dated 15.12.2010 ofHon'ble High Court is to be complied with.

The Administrative Department of Shri Baisconfirmed that his wife viz. Smt. Sadhna SinghBais has been working as Shiksha Karmi inGovernment Girls School Pahadgarh, Muraina,M.P. since 09.09.1998.

The Administrative Department informed that19 junior RAEOs to Shri Bais were given thebenefit of ACP with retrospective effect prior to23.09.2000 but orders to this effect were issuedafter 01.09.2001. Out of them 17 RAEOs wereallocated to the State of M.P.

In the light of the above, the Committee notedthat wife of Shri Bais is workil!& in the State of

29

73. 73 Shri A. K. Chaturvedi,RAEO,D/o AgricultureW P No. 2701/2006MCC No. 15512010

M.P. since 09.09.1998. The Committee furthernoted that 17 junior RAEOs to Shri Bais weregiven the benefit of ACP with retrospective effectand allocated to the State of M.P. Therefore, theCommittee considered the matter andrecommended revision of allocation of Shri Baisfrom Chhattisgarh to M.P. because junior RAEOswere allocated to M.P. and his wife is workingunder the Govt. of M.P.

While disposing of MCC No. 155/2010 on28.06.2010 the Hon 'ble High Court directed thepetitioner to submit the representation incompliance of its earlier order dated 10.02.2009passed in WP No. 2701/2006 within a period of30 days from the date of order.

Earlier, the representation of Shri Chaturvediwas considered by the advisory committee in itsmeetings held on 23.01.2012 and recommendedfor rejection with following observations:-

"On the recommendation of AdministrativeDepartment of the petitioner the Committeedecided to recommend his request for rejectionbecause his claim for allocation to MadhyaPradesh is not tenable as his two juniors wereallocated to MP under spouse policy and on themedical ground respectively."

The Administrative Department has informedthat Shri Chaturvedi was allocated to Chhattisgarhin pay scale of Rs. 4000-6000/- In generalcategory on juniority basis (A/4 category). Theyfurther clarified that no junior to Shri Chaturvedihas been granted benefit of ACP withretrospective effect prior to 23.09.2000 but issuedafter 01.09.200 I. 3 juniors to Shri Chaturvedi viz.Shri D L Rajput, Shri Shiv Shankar Tomar andShri Brij Kishore Sharma were allocated to M.P.due to incorrect seniority rank in the pay scale ofRs.4000-60001-. The Administrative Departmentfurther informed that allocation of above saidthree juniors to Shri Chaturvedi has beencorrected by revising their allocation from M P toChhattisgarh vide order No. 14/22/2007-SR(S)

30

· «

74. 74 Shri A. K. Silarpuriya,RAEO,0/0 AgricultureW P No. 762112003

75. 75 Shri Vijay Pal SinghChoudhary,RAEO,0/0 AgricultureW P No. 3024/2010

dated 10.03.2013 by Government of India.

In the light of above, the Committeerecommended rejection of representation of ShriChaturvedi as grounds raised by him are notcovered by the guidelines of allocation. TheCommittee noted that after revision of allocationof three juniors to Chhattisgarh on 10.04.2013, theclaim of petitioner would no longer sustain. Aspeaking order shall be issued accord in_sly.

The petitioner is working in the State of M.P.In compliance of directions dated 05.12.2003passed by Hon'ble High Court of M.P. atJabalpur. The petitioner was allocated toChhattisgarh against his option under junior mostcategory (A-4) in the pay scale ofRs. 4000-6000/-on the basis of erroneous seniority rank 9538A.The petitioner has raised the issue of allocation ofhis junior RAEOs to M.P. in pay scale of Rs.4000-6000/-.

The Administrative Department has informedthat the petitioner was allocated to Chhattisgarhagainst his option under junior most category(A-4) in the pay scale of Rs. 4000-60001- on thebasis of erroneous seniority rank 9538A. Hisseniority rank was amended to 9358. However, hisallocation to Chhattisgarh remained unchanged.Seniority rank of Shri Silarpuriya is 231 in the payscale of Rs. 4000-6000/-. The AdministrativeDepartment further informed that as per hisrevised seniority rank, 37 junior RAEOs to ShriSilarpuriya were allocated to M.P. in pay scale ofRs. 4000-6000/-

In the light of submission of AdministrativeDepartment, the Committee recommendedrevision of allocation of Shri A.K. Silarpuriyafrom Chhattisgarh to M.P. because 37 juniorsRAEOs were allocated to M.P.

The petitioner is working in the State of M.P.In pursuance to stay order dated 10.03.2010granted by the Hon'ble High Court of M.P. atJabalpur. The petitioner was allocated toChhatti~arh ~gainst his ~tion under junior most

31

76. 76 Shri J.P. Sharma, RAEO,0/0 AgricultureW. P. No. 2905/2010

category (A-4) in the pay scale ofRs. 4500-7000/-The petitioner has raised the issue of allocation ofhis junior RAEOs to M.P. in lower pay scale ofRs.4000-6000/-.

The Administrative Department has informedthat the petitioner was allocated to Chhattisgarhunder junior most category(A-4) in the pay scaleof Rs. 4500-7000/-. Seniority rank of ShriChoudhary is 134 in the above pay scale. 63RAEOs were given the benefit of ACP effectiveprior to 23.09.2000 but issued after 01.09.2001.As per Final Allocation List 34 juniors wereallocated to M.P. in the pay scale of Rs. 4500-7000/- in general category. Out of them 33employees who were receiving the pay scale of4000-6000, and Shri Sanjay Singh Tomar wasallocated to M.P. in the pay scale of 4500-7000/-due to error in seniority rank (7433A in place of9554). His allocation remained unchanged in spiteof error being noticed. As per informationprovided by the Administrative Department, it isclear that junior RAEOs to the petitioner wereallocated to M.P. in lower pay scale and they weregiven benefit of ACP with retrospective effect.

The Committee noted the above facts andrecommended revision of allocation of Shri VijayPal Singh Choudhary from Chhattisgarh to M.P.since his juniors were allocated to M.P. in lowerpay scale.

The petitioner is working in the State of M.P.in pursuance to stay order dated 05.03.2010granted by the Hon'ble High Court of M.P. atJabalpur. The petitioner was allocated toChhattisgarh against his option under junior mostcategory (A-4) in the pay scale ofRs. 4500-7000/-. The petitioner has raised the issue of allocationof his junior RAEOs to M.P. in lower pay scale ofRs. 4000-6000/-.

The Administrative Department has informedthat the petitioner was allocated to Chhattisgarhunder junior most category(A-4) in the pay scaleof Rs. 4500-7000/-. Seniority rank of ShriSharma is 230 in the above pay scale. 69 RAEOs

32

•

77. 77 Shri Gajanand Sharma,RAEO,0/0 AgricultureW. P. No. 4365/2006

In compliance of directions dated 16.04.2008,Shri Sharma submitted his representation raisingfollowing grounds: -

were given the benefit of ACP effective prior to23.09.2000 but issued after 01.09.200l. As perFinal Allocation List, 63 juniors were allocated toM.P. in the pay scale of Rs. 4500-7000/- ingeneral category. Out of them 61 employees whowere receiving the pay scale of Rs. 4000-6000 andallocated to M.P. Shri Sanjay Singh Tomar wasallocated to M.P. in the pay scale of 4500-7000/-due to error in seniority rank (7433A in place of9554) and Shri R K Shukla was allocated to M.P.in pay scale of 3500-5200/- due to error inseniority rank and pay scale (8940 in the pay scaleof 3500-5200 in place of 8940 in pay scale of4500-7000). Their allocation remained unchangedin spite of error being noticed. As per informationprovided by the Administrative Department, it isclear that junior RAEOs to the petitioner wereallocated to M.P. in lower pay scale and they weregiven benefit of ACP with retrospective effect.

The Committee noted the above facts andrecommended revision of allocation of Shri J.P.Sharma from Chhattisgarh to M.P. since hisjuniors were allocated to M.P. in lower.Ray scale.

(i) He had opted for the State of M.P.(ii) He was transferred 'to Chhattisgarh on

mutual transfer basis; however, he hadwithdrawn his request for transfer toChhattisgarh. He is domicile of M.P. andwants to remain in the State of M.P.

(iii) His representation dated 28.02.2005 hasnot been decided till date despite court'sdirections.

(iv) As per provisions of M.P. State Re-organization Act,2000 orders forallocationltransfer may only be issuedwithin one year and may not bethereafter.

(v) In spite of his request for serving in theState of M.P., the Government of Indiaapproved his mutual transfer vide letterdated 17.09.2003 and orders for his

33

.. ..

transfer from M.P. to Chhattisgarh wereissued on 07.06.2004.

The Administrative Department informed thatShri Sharma was finally allocated to State of M.P.as per his option in the pay scale of 4S00-7000.After publication of final allocation list, thepetitioner submitted a representation dated12.12.2002 for mutual transfer from M.P. toChhattisgarh with Shri K K Srivastava, RAEOwho was finally allocated to Chhattisgarh underjunior most category. The above saidrepresentation was forwarded to CentralGovernment with mutual consent of both the StateGovernments. The Central Government issuedinstructions on 17.09.2003 for State Governmentto consider the representations received from theState Government including the representation ofpetitioner in the light of letter dated 01.0S.2003after defining the terms and conditions for suchconsideration or by framing suitable rules for thispurpose. Accordingly, State Government issuedorder for mutual transfer of Shri Sharma and ShriK K Srivastava to the States of Chhattisgarh andM.P. respectively. The petitioner VIZ. ShriSharma was relieved for the State of Chhattisgarhvide order dated 07.06.2004.

The Committee observed that Shri Sharmawas allocated to M.P. as per his option. Later on,he was transferred to State of Chhattisgarh inmutual exchange with Shri K K Srivastava. TheCentral Government had not issued order withregard to his mutual transfer. It only instructed theState Government concerned to consider suchcases of mutual transfer in the light of letter datedo1.0S.2003 issued by Central Government. Thesaid letter dated 01.0S.2003 contains instructionsto the State Governments to consider the requestof mutual transfer based on broad consensusarrived between the State Governments inter aliadefining the terms and conditions for suchconsiderations or by framing suitable rules for thispurpose.

The Committee further observed that the State

34

•

78. 78 Smt. Monika Navrang,Deputy Registrar,0/0 Commercial Tax,(Representation)

•

Government issued order for mutual transfer inrespect of Shri Sharma and Shri K. K. Srivastavawith mutual consent of both the StateGovernments i.e. M.P. and Chhattisgarh.

The Committee noted that the petitioner wasallocated to M.P. as per his option. Later on, hewas transferred to Chhattisgarh on his request bythe State Government. In the light of the above,the Committee recommended rejection of hisrepresentation. A speaking order shall be issuedaccordingly.

Smt. Navrang has submitted a representationfor revision of his state allocation from M.P. toChhattisgarh. She has mentioned in herrepresentation that she belongs to SC category andis domicile of district Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh,Her husband Shri Rakesh Kumar Navrang isworking as Bio-medical Engineer in Chhattisgarh,Ayurvedic Sansthan, Bilaspur. She has referredthe letter dated 24.06.20 I0 issued by Governmentof India whereby SC/ST employees were given anopportunity for revision of State allocation.

The Administrative Department informed thatSmt. Navrang was appointed vide order no.8/stha.sewal02/2002 dated 04.03.2002.TheAdministrative Department further informed thatthe Department of General Administration opinedthat Smt. Navrang was appointed on 04.03.2002after final allocation of employees by Governmentof India. There is no instruction issued, byDepartment of General Administration, M.P. forallocation of employees appointed after finalallocation.

The Committee noted that Smt. Navrang wasappointed in government service after theappointed day for allocation i.e. 01.11.2000.Therefore, her services are not allocable underM.P. Re-organization Act, 2000.

In the light of above, the Committee did notconsider the representation as it does not fallwithin the..£urview of it.

35

79. 79 Shri Raghuveer SinghBhadoriya,Veterinary Asstt. Surgeon,D/o Animal HusbandryW. A. No. 386/2007

While disposing of W. A. No. 386/2007 on19.03.2014, the Hon'ble High Court of M.P. heldthat the instant writ appeal is allowed withfollowing directions:-

(i) The order of learned single judge passedon 12.09.2006 in W. P. No. 244312005 isset-aside.

(ii) The Central Government is directed tore-consider the representation madeearlier by the petitioner against his finalallocation, pass speaking order andcommunicate the same to the petitionerwithin a period of 60 days from the dateof receipt of certified copy of this order.

(iii) in case, the order passed by CentralGovernment pursuant to this order isadverse to the interest of the petitionerthen the petitioner may assail the same inaccordance with law for which status quoin regard to his service conditions shallbe maintained till 30 days of the date ofreceipt of adverse order passed by theCentral Government.

Shri Bhadoriya raised following grounds in hisold representation.

(i) His junior Dr. K K Sharma and Dr.Hemant Kumar Pathak were allocatedto the State of M.P.

(ii) Some other juniors were not given thebenefit of ACP while they wereeligible and they were allocated toM.P. in lower pay scale.

The Administrative Department informed thatDr. K. K. Sharma and Shri Hemant Kumar Pathakwere allocated to MP. On mutual transfer basis.They have further clarified that 9 junior AssistantVeterinary Surgeons were not given ACP in thepay scale of Rs. 10000-152001- before publicationof TFAL. 9 other junior were given the benefit ofACP in the pay scale of Rs. 10000-152001- buteffective after 23.09.2000 as they had notcompleted 12 years of their service. Therefore,they were placed in lower pay scale.

36

• ••

80. 80 Smt. Manju Shukla,Project Officer,D/o Woman & ChildDevelopment,WP No. 24/2009

•

In the light of above, the Committeerecommended rejection of representation of ShriBhadoriya as his 9 juniors were not given thebenefit of ACP and 9 other juniors were allocatedto M.P. in lower pay scale because they were noteligible for ACP prior to/on 23.09.2000.

While disposing of W. P. No. 24/2009 on03.09.13, the Hon'ble High Court of M.P. atJabalpur quashed the order No. 14176/04-SR(S)dated 5113.01.05 passed by the Union of Indiawhereby the representation of the petitioner wasrejected. The Hon'ble Court further quashed theallocation order dated 08.08.02 allocating thepetitioner to Chhattisgarh and consequential orderof relieving dated 15.12.08. The Hon 'ble Courtallowed the petitioner to continue in services ofthe State of Madhya Pradesh only and to work onher post.

The Committee noted that the petitioner wasallocated to Chhattisgarh as per her option. Lateron, after final allocation, the petitioner hadchanged her option from Chhattisgarh to M.P. andrequested for allocation to M.P. on the basis of herchanged option for M.P. under women employeecategory. However, Administrative Departmenthad recommended her allocation to M.P. butrepresentation of the petitioner was rejected by theCentral Government after due consideration.

In view of above, in its last meeting, theCommittee recommended to file appeal againstthe above said order dated 03.09.2013 of theHon'ble Court.

Smt. Shukla has submitted a freshrepresentation for her retention in the State ofM.P. being woman employee on sympatheticgrounds.

Department of Women and ChildDevelopment, Govt. of M.P. has informed thatWrit Appeal No. 897/2014 preferred by the StateGovt. has been dismissed by the Hon'ble HighCourt on 29.06.2015. The AdministrativeDt::Qartment has submitted that in view of the

37~'

81. 81 Shri Krishan Kumar Kori,Asstt. Grade - III,Dlo Commerce andIndustry,(Representation)

82. 82 Shri Vivek Barde,Assistant Grade-I,Dlo Technical Education,(Representation)

dismissal of writ appeal, the Court's order dated03.09.2013 passed by W.P. No. 24/2009 is to becomplied with by allocating Smt. Shukla to M.P.

The representative of the Central Govt.informed that as advised by the Department ofLegal Affairs, Govt. of India, the Central Govt. isof view that SLP be not filed in the Hon'ble ApexCourt challenging the Order dated 29.06.2015passed by the Hon'ble High Court of M.P. in WANo. 897/2014.

The Committee noted that since the Govt. ofM.P. and the Central Govt. are to consider therepresentation of Smt. Shukla for allocation toM.P. in compliance of the Court's directions dated03.09.2013, consent of the Govt. of Chhattisgarhbe obtained. On receipt of the consent, the matterbe considered by the Central Govt. in the light ofthe consent of both the State Govts. and necessaryorders would be2assed accordingly.

The Administrative Department of Shri Koriconfirmed that he belongs to SC category, isdomicile of M.P. and had opted for M.P. He wasallocated to Chhattisgarh on juniority basis (A-4category).

In the light of the above facts, the Committeeconsidered the representation and recommendedrevision of allocation of Shri Krishan Kumar Korifrom Chhattisgarh to M.P. under revisedguidel ines dated 24.06.20 10 for allocation ofSC/ST employees as he belongs to SC categoryand is domicile/optee of M.P.

Shri Barde has submitted a representation forrevision of State allocation from Chhattisgarh toM.P. under policy for allocation of victims ofBhopal Gas Tragedy. He has mentioned inrepresentation that he had received acompensation of Rs. 500001-.

The Administrative Department has informedthat Shri Barde was allocated to the State ofChhattisgarh as per his option under (A-2category) in accordance with the guidelines ofallocation.

38

83. 83 Smt. Raj Tripathi, Lecturer,0/0 School Education,(Representation)

In the light of the submission of theAdministrative Department, the Committeeconsidered representation of Shri Barde andrecommended rejection of his re~resentation.

Smt. Tripathi submitted a representation forrevision of State allocation from Chhattisgarh toM.P. under sympathetic grounds.

The Administrative Department has informedthat it has already conveyed its consent vide theirletter dated 25.02.2015 for transfer of Smt.Tripathi to M.P. They have further given 'noobjection' to transfer of Smt. Tripathi being awomen employee.

The Committee noted that service andallocation details of Smt. Tripathi have not beenfurnished by the Administrative Department. StateGovt. only has given its consent on her transferfrom Chhattisgarh to M.P.

Taking note of the above, the Committeedeferred the matter for its next meeting andinstructed the Administrative Department tofurnish the service/allocation details of Smt.Tripathi supported by TFAL, FAL and completeinformation indicating cadre, option, basis ofallocation to the Central Government.

*******

39