, F. No. 14/03/2012-SR(S) Vol.-IVGovernment ofIndia

Speed PostUrgent

Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions(Department of Personnel & 'Training)

3rd Floor, Lok Nayak BhawanKhan Market, New Delhi-ll0003,

Dated, the 15th October, 2013To

The Principal Secretary,General Administration Department,Government of Madhya Pradesh,Vallabh Bhawan, Bhopal,Madhya Pradesh-462004

\ s oel 101i

Subject: Minutes of the 23rd meeting of the State Advisory Committee held on 20th September,2013 at 11.30 A.M. in Room No. 315, Vallabh Bhawan, Bhopal, Madhya Pradeshunder 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 20th 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 incompliance with the directions given by the Hon'ble High Court of M.P. and Chhattisgarh andother representations of employees under SC/ST category, spouse policy, etc. The orders forrevision of allocation/rejection of representations would be issued separately by the Governmentof India.

Yours faithfully, "Encls: As mentioned above.

O#v(A.K. Malhotra)

Under Secretary to the Govt. of IndiaTel. No: 011-24651898

Copy to:The Principal Secretaries:

1. 0/0 General Administration, Govt. of Chhattisgarh, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur, Chhattisgarh- ,492001.

2. Dlo Water Resources, Govt. of M.P., Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh.3. 0/0 Water Resources, Govt. ofChhattisgarh, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.4. 0/0 Farmers' Welfare & Agriculture Development, Govt. of M.P., Bhopal, M.P.5. 0/0 Agriculture, Govt. ofChhattisgarh, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.6. Dlo Horticulture, Govt. of M.P., Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh.7. Dlo Horticulture, Govt. ofChhattisgarh, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.8. Dlo Public Health & Family Welfare, Govt. of M.P., Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh. '9. 0/0 Public Health & Family Welfare, Govt. ofChhattisgarh, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

Contd ..... at page-21

-2-

10. D/o Ayush, Govt. of M.P., Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh.11. D/o Ayush, Govt. of Chhattisgarh, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.12. D/o Public Works, Govt. of M.P., Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh.13. D/o Public Works, Govt. ofChhattisgarh, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.14. D/o Home, Govt. of'Mf>; Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh.15. D/o Home, GoV,1:.of Chhattisgarh, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.16. D/o Animal Husbandry, Govt. of M.P., Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh.17. D/o AnimalHusbandry, Govt. ofChhattisgarh, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.18. D/o School Education, Govt. of M.P., Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh.19. D/o School Education, Govt. ofChhattisgarh, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.20. D/o Technical Education, Govt. of M.P., Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh.21. D/o Technical Education, Govt. ofChhattisgarh, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.22. D/o Fisheries, Govt. of M.P., Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh.23. D/o Fisheries, Govt. ofChhattisgarh, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.24. D/o Social Welfare, Govt. of M.P., Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh.25. D/o Social Welfare, Govt. ofChhattisgarh, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.26. D/o Housing & Environment, Govt. of M.P., Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh.27. D/o Housing & Environment, Govt. ofChhattisgarh, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.28. D/o Public Health Engineering, Govt. of M.P., Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh.29. D/o Public Health Engineering, Govt. ofChhattisgarh, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.30. D/o Commerce & Industry, Govt. of M.P., Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh.31. D/o Commerce & Industry, Govt. ofChhattisgarh, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.32. D/o Tribal & Schedule Caste Development, Govt. of M.P., Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh.33. D/o Tribal & Schedule Caste Development, Govt. ofChhattisgarh, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.34. D/o Employment & Training, Govt. of M.P., Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh.35. D/o Employment & Training, Govt. ofChhattisgarh, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.36. D/o Rural Industries, Govt. of M.P., Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh.37. D/o Rural Industries, Govt. ofChhattisgarh, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.38. D/o Food & Civil Supplies, Govt. of M.P., Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh.39. D/o Food & Civil Supplies, Govt. ofChhattisgarh, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.40. D/o Rural Development, Govt. of M.P., Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh.41. D/o Rural Development, Govt. of Chhattisgarh, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.42. D/o Revenue, Govt. of M.P., Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh.43. D/o Revenue, Govt. ofChhattisgarh, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

Copy also to:1. PS to JS (AT & A & SR)2. Pato Director (CRDISR)

~(A.K. Malhotra)

Under Secretary to the Govt. of IndiaTel. No: 011-24651898

• Minutes of the 23rd Meeting of State Advisory Committee, Madhya Pradeshheld on 20th 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 Pradeshand Chhattisgarh, 23rd Meeting of the State Advisory Committee was convened at Bhopalat 11.30 AM on 20/09/13, under the Chairmanship of Shri Manoj Joshi, Joint Secretary(AT & A), OOPT, to consider the representations of the petitioners/employees of MadhyaPradesh 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 thepermission of the Chair, took up the agenda of the meeting for discussion. The Committeeconsidered 109 cases in all and decision of the Committee in each Individualcase has beenreflected in the last column of the table below:

SI. Name, Designation &No. W.P.IWrit Appeal No.1 Shri Kamal Singh

Sisodia, Sub- Engineer,WRD (W.P. No.2763/06)

2 Shri Roop BasantJharwade, Sub-Engineer, WRD(W. P. No. 2420/08)

3 Shri Ravindra SinghParihar, Sub-Engineer,WRD (Writ AppealNo. 413/2011)

4 Shri Narendra SinghYadav, Sub-Engineer,WRD (Writ AppealNo. 358/2011)

Recommendations of the Committee

Their request is covered under the guidelines ofallocation for SC/ST employees. The Committeerecommended to revise their allocation fromChhattisgarh to Madhya Pradesh as they belong toSC category and are domicile/optee of MadhyaPradesh.

In compliance with the directions dated 13.03.12 ofHigh Court of M.P., the representation of petitionerwas considered by the Committee in the light of thecomments received from the AdministrativeDepartment of the petitioner. The AdministrativeDepartment, having re-examined the representation,admitted that Shri Parihar's juniors viz. Shri RakeshKumar Jain, Shri Vijay Kumar, Shri SatyanarayanSrivastava, Shri Kailash Narayan Raghuvanshi, Shri SK Soni, Shri Sridhar Chokse, Shri Shyam Lal Soni,Shri Prabhu Lal Kumar & Shri Pradeep Kumar Vaidyawere given higher pay scale, under ACP scheme, withretrospective effect, i.e. effective before 23.09.2000,but were allocated to Madhya Pradesh in lower payscale. The Committee considered these facts anddecided to recommend revision of allocation of thepetitioner from Chhattisgarh to Madhya Pradeshon the ground that his juniors were allocated toMadhya Pradesh under similar conditions in whichthe allocation of~etitioner took ~ace.In compliance with the directions dated 13.03.12 of

High Court of M.P., the representation of petitionerwas considered by the Committee. However, adecision on the representation had to be deferred as the

1

//

1

ljrr

/

•lIr

5

Shri Manoj KumarKalosiya, Sub-Engineer,WRD(W.P. No. 15011106)

Shri Rajendra SinghBhadoria, Tracer, WRD(Writ Appeal No. 42312011)

6 Shri Rakesh KumarSrivastava, AssistantEngineer, WRD(W.P.No.837/2012)

representative of Department of Water Resourcesinformed that the claim of petitioner is yet to bechecked and verified. The Committee, therefore,decided to defer the matter and desired thatdetailed comments/report on allocation of hisjuniors be compiled by the administrativeDepartment and placed before the Committee in itsnext meeting,

Shri P N Sharma,Engineer,

In compliance with the directions dated 13.03.12 ofHigh Court of M.P., the representation ofthepetitionerwas considered by the Committee in the light of thecomments received from the AdministrativeDepartment of the petitioner. The AdministrativeDepartment, after having re-examined therepresentation, admitted that his juniors viz. Shri V KPatel, Shri R R Date, Shri Vikas Kundle, Shri S KUpadhayay & Shri J P Namdev were given higher payscale of Rs.3500-5200, under ACP scheme, wef19.04.99, but were allocated to M.P. in lower pay scaleof Rs.3050-4590. The Committee considered thesefacts and recommended revision of allocation of thepetitioner from Chhattisgarh to Madhya Pradeshon the ground that his juniors were allocated toMadhya Pradesh under similar conditions in whichthe allocation of petitioner took place.

The representations of the petitioners wereconsidered by the Committee in the light of thecomments received from the AdministrativeDepartment of the petitioner. The AdministrativeDepartment, after having re-examined therepresentations, admitted that 25 Assistant Engineers,junior to the petitioners, were given higher pay scale ofRs.lOOOO-15200,under ACP scheme, wef 14.05.99,but were allocated to M.P. in lower pay scale ofRs.8000-13500. The Committee considered thesefacts and recommended for revision of allocation ofthe petitioners from Chhattisgarh to MadhyaPradesh on the ground that their juniors wereallocated to Madhya Pradesh under similarconditions in which the allocation of petitioner tookplace.

The representation of the petitioner was consideredby the Committee. However, the representatives ofDepartment of Water Resources as well as Departmentof General Administration informed that it could not beconfirmed whether the petitioner is still in service orhas expired. Besides, Caste certificate of the petitionerwas also not available with the AdministrativeDepartment. The Committee, accordingly, decidedto defer the matter and desired that the factual

7AssistantWRD(W.P.No.837/2012)

8

2

l,;.,"/fr,

rrrI

,.9

Shri Subhash ChandraGupta, Asstt. Engineer,WRD,(W.Appeal No. 39812011)

v :

Shri Suresh ChandraSharma, Sub-Engineer,WRD(Writ Appeal No. 22012011)

10 Shri VishwanathBansal, Sub-Engineer,WRD, (Writ AppealNo. 457/2011)

position be verified and placed before theCommittee in its next meeting. The Committee alsodesired that a copy of judgement/order passed inW.P. No.lS011/06, if any, be also produced before itin its next meeting,

The Committee was apprised by the AdministrativeDepartment that an appeal has been filed in the Courtwhich is pending. The Committee, therefore,decided to defer the matter till disposal of theappeal filed in the Hon'ble High Court.

In compliance with the directions dated 13.03.12,passed by the Hon'ble High Court of M.P., therepresentation of the petitioner was considered by theCommittee in light of the comments received from theAdministrative Department. It was contended by theAdministrative Department that his juniors Shri DilipSharma and Shri Rajesh Chaturvedi were allocated toMadhya Pradesh on mutual transfer and not on thebasis of seniority. Shri R K Sharma was finallyallocated to Chhattisgarh. As regards Shri RakeshKumar Jain, Shri Vijay Kumar, Shri SatyanarayanSrivastava, Shri Kailash Narayan Raghuvanshi, Shri SK Soni, Shri Sridhar Chokse, Shri Shyam Lal Soni,Shri Prabhu Lal Kumar and Shri Pradeep KumarVaidya, it was intimated that they are senior to thepetitioner. Since the grounds raised by the petitionerdid not turn out to be valid, the AdministrativeDepartment requested for rejection of his request. TheCommittee took note of the facts as explained by theAdministrative Department and recommended toreject the representation of the petitioner as none ofthe grounds raised by him in his representation iscovered under the existing guidelines of allocation.A detailed speaking order shall be issued.

11 In compliance with directions dated 13.03.12 of theHon'ble High Court of M.P., the representation ofpetitioner was considered by the Committee. He hasraised the ground of mental illness of his father but nomedical certificate was furnished by the petitioner insupport of his claim. As regards allocation of hisjuniors to M.P., it was contended that Shri J K Oswaland Shri A C Patidar were allocated to MadhyaPradesh on mutual transfer and Shri A Haq wasallocated to M.P. on the ground of mental illness of hiswife. However, Shri Bhag Chand Jain was allocated toM.P. by placing him at Sl. No. 2822A in TFAL. Hisseniority rank was changed from 2822A to 3071A,while seniority rank of Shri Gupta is 3064A. This wasplaced before the then allocation Committeeheaded byShri Lohani. Lohani Committee decided that allocation

3

,.r

12 Shri Bindeshwari Singh,Sub-Engineer, WRD,(W.P. No. 6288/2006)

13 Shri Kailash ChandraGupta, Sub-Engineer,WRD, (W.P. No.5174/2006)

\ /

of Shri Bhagchand Jain need not be changed. TheCommittee, after perusing the facts explained by theAdministrative Department as well as Departmentof General Administration, viewed that decision ofthe Lohani Committee, not to change allocation ofShri Bhagchand Jain, was not in order. Therefore,the Committee recommended to correct theallocation of Shri BhagchandJain by revising hisallocation from M.P. to Chhattisgarh. Since afterrevising allocation of Shri Jain to Chhattisgarh, theground raised by Shri Gupta would no longersustain, the Committee recommended to reject hisrepresentation for revision of his allocation fromChhattisgarh to M.P. A detailed speaking ordershall be issued.

In compliance with the directions dated 28.02.12of High Court of M.P., the representation of petitionerwas considered by the Committee in the light of thecomments received from the AdministrativeDepartment of the petitioner. The AdministrativeDepartment, after having re-examined therepresentation, admitted that a number of Sub-Engineers, junior to the petitioner, were given higherpay scale of Rs.8000-13500, under ACP scheme, withretrospective effect i.e. effective before 23.09.2000, butwere allocated to M.P. in lower pay scale of Rs.6500-10500. The Committee considered these facts andrecommended revision of allocation of the petitionerfrom Chhattisgarh to Madhya Pradesh on theground that his juniors 'were allocated to M.P.under similar conditions in which the allocation ofpetitioner took place.

In compliance with directions dated 21.11.11 of theHon'ble High Court of M.P., the representation dated24.08.12 submitted by Shri Gupta was considered bythe Committee in the light of the comments receivedfrom his Administrative Department. He has raised theground of his option to M.P., allocation of his juniorsto M.P. and disability of his mother. AdministrativeDepartment of Shri Gupta contended that he wasallocated to Chhattisgarh under A-4 category i.e. beingjunior. It was further contended that he has not namedany persons junior to him who have been allocated toM.P. Besides, guidelines for medical hardship do notcover disability of kins of the employees. In view ofthe above facts, the Administrative Departmentcontended that Shri Gupta has not furthered any validgrounds for consideration of his representation.The Committee considered the representation ofShri Gupta in the l!ght of the facts furnished by the

,/

14 Shri Kamleshwar LalSinha, Sub-Engineer,WRD(W. P. 5327/10)

15 Shri A K Gupta, Sub-Engineer, WRD(W.P. No. 5729/06)

16 Shri J P Pateria, Sub-Engineer, WRD(Representation)

17 Shri Satish KumarVyas, Asstt. Engineer,WRD(Representation)

Administrative Department and recommended toreject his representation as none of the ground,raised by him in his representation is covered underthe existing guidelines of allocation. A detailedspeaking order shall be issued.

In compliance with directions dated 14.02.13 ofHon'ble High Court of Chhattisgarh, the representationof the petitioner was considered by the Committee. Itwas noted that the petitioner is domicile ofChhattisgarh and had also opted for Chhattisgarh. Hewas allocated to M.P. as his domicile was erroneouslyrecorded as Rewa, M.P. Administrative Department ofthe petitioner confirmed that his domicile is Raipur,Chhattisgarh. Taking note of the above facts, theCommittee recommended to revise the allocation ofthe petitioner from Madhya Pradesh toChhattisgarh.

In compliance with directions dated 15.11.11 ofHon'ble High Court of M.P., the Committee consideredthe representation of the petitioner the AdministrativeDepartment informed that the facts with regard toallocation of petitioner's juniors to M.P. could not beverified/checked. The Committee, accordingly,decided to defer the matter and desired that theposition be verified and detailed comments/reportbe placed before it in its next meeting,

Shri Pateria, allocated to M.P., represented that hisallocation be revised under spouse policy as his wife isworking in Chhattisgarh. As the Committee took therepresentation for consideration, AdministrativeDepartment of the representationist informed that hehas withdrawn his representation and does not want hisallocation to be revised. Taking note of the presentcircumstances, the Committee dropped the case.The Committee considered the representation of Shri

Vyas in the light of the comments received from theAdministrative Department. Shri Vyas has contendedthat his seniority has changed in view of which he hasbecome senior and therefore, requested that hisallocation be revised from Chhattisgarh to M.P.accordingly. Administrative Department of Shri Vyasagreed with his contentions, The Committee tooknote of the facts explained by the AdministrativeDepartment and recommended to revise theallocation of Shri Satish Kumar Vyas fromChhattisgarh to M.P.

~5

19

Shri Gaya PrasadAhirwar, Tracer, WRD(Representation)

20

21

22

18 Shri Rajesh KumarPachouri, Sub-Engineer, WRD(Representation)

Shri Madan LalAhirwar, Sub-Engineer,WRD(Representation)

Shri Laxman PrasadAhirwar, Sub-Engineer,WRD(Representation)

Shri Murli Ubnare, Sub-Engineer, WRD(Representation)

The Committee considered the representation of ShriPachouri in the light of the comments received fromthe Administrative Department. Shri Pachouri hascontended that his wife Smt. Chandralekha is workingin Govt schools in M.P. since 31.07.85 'and presentlyposted in Girls Higher Secondary School in DistrictHoshangabad, M.P. and therefore, requested forrevising his allocation from Chhattisgarh to M.P. underspouse policy. Administrative Department of ShriPachouri agreed with his contentions. The Committeetook note of the facts explained by theAdministrative Department and recommended torevise the allocation of Shri Rajesh KumarPachouri from Chhattisgarh to M.P.

The Committee considered the representation of ShriAhirwar in which he requested for revising hisallocation from Chhattisgarh to M.P. on the grounds ofbelonging to Scheduled Caste and domicile of M.P.Administrative Department of Shri Ahjrwar confirmedthe position and supported the claim of therepresentationist. Accordingly, the Committeerecommended to revise the allocation of ShriMadan Lal Ahirwar from Chhattisgarh to M.P.,under revised policy for allocation of SC/ST.The Committee considered the representation of ShriAhirwar in which he requested for revising hisallocation from Chhattisgarh to M.P. on the grounds ofbelonging to Scheduled Caste and domicile of M.P.Administrative Department of Shri Ahirwar confirmedthe position and supported the claim of therepresentationist. Accordingly, the Committeerecommended to revise the allocation of ShriLaxman Prasad Ahirwar from Chhattisgarh toM.P., under revised policy for allocation of SC/ST.The Committee considered the representation of ShriUbnare in which he requested for revising hisallocation from Chhattisgarh to M.P. on the grounds ofbelonging to Scheduled Caste and domicile of M.P.Administrative Department of Shri Ubnare confirmedthe position and supported the claim of therepresentationist. Accordingly, the Committeerecommended to revise the allocation of Shri MurliUbnare from Chhattisgarh to M.P., under revisedpolicy for allocation of SC/ST.The Committee considered the representation of ShriAhirwar in which he requested for revising hisallocation from Chhattisgarh to M.P. on the grounds ofbelonging to Scheduled Caste and domicile of M.P.Administrative Department of Shri Ahirwai confirmed

6

~

-.23

24

25

26

27

Shri Shiv Das Kol,Embankment Officer,WRD(Representation)

Shri Munna LalSheskar, Bhritya, WRD(Representation)

Shri Kalooram Ladia,Sub-Engineer, WRD(Representation)

Shri Purushottam Kori,Sub-Engineer, WRD(Representation)

Shri Rewa Ram Yadav,SADO, Department ofFarmers' Welfare &Agriculture Dev.(W.P. No. 150S/2006)

the position and supported the claim of therepresentationist. Accordingly, the Committeerecommended to revise the allocation of Shri GayaPrasad Ahirwar from Chhattisgarh to M.P. on thepost of Tracer, under revised policy for allocation ofSC/ST.The Committee considered the representation of ShriKol in which he requested for revising his allocationfrom Chhattisgarh to M.P. on the grounds of belongingto Scheduled Tribe and domicile of M.P.Administrative Department of Shri Kol confirmed theposition and supported the claim of therepresentationist. Accordingly, the Committeerecommended to revise the allocation of Shri ShivDas Kol from Chhattisgsrh to M.P, under revisedpolicy for allocation of SC/ST.The Committee considered the representation of ShriSheskar in which he requested for revising hisallocation from Chhattisgarh to M.P. on the grounds ofbelonging to Scheduled caste and domicile of M.P.However, Administrative Department of Shri Sheskarinformed the Committee that he belongs to Non-StateCadre and as such, no allocation/revision of allocationof such employees is resorted to underMadhya Pradesh State Reorganisation" Act. It wasfurther informed that no" specific order for allocationwas made in respect of Non-State Cadre employeeswho stood allocated to the respective successOi State inwhich they were working as on 01.11.2000. TheCommittee took note of the facts explained by theAdministrative Department and viewed that the matterdoes not fall under its purview. Accordingly, theCommittee recommended to reject therepresentation of Shri Sheskar.The Administrative Department of Shri Ladia informedthat order for revising allocation from Chhattisgarh toM.P. has already been issued. The Committee tooknote of the position and dropped the case fromagenda.The Administrative Department of Shri Kori informedthat order for revising allocation from Chhattisgarh to.M.P. has already been issued. The Committee tooknote of the position and dropped the case fromaaeada,In compliance with the directions dated .15.11.11,passed by the Hon'ble High Court of M.P., therepresentation of the petitioner was considered by theCommittee in light of the comments received from theAdministrative Department. Shri Yadav has contendedthat 6 SADOs, who were junior to him, have been

7

)'

,.t~,..- j~~. --.Jlcr

,.allocated to M.P. while he has been allocated toChhattisgarh. Administrative Department of thepetitioner, however, informed that his junior Shri S STyagi, Shri R S Tomar, Shri Sadaqat Baig and ShriPadam Singh Yadav were retained in M.P. on mutualbasis. Shri Shiv.Narain Parashar was retained due tohis ensuing retirement i.e. within two years of crucialdate. Shri D.S. Ahirwar was allocated to M.P. underSC category for having opted for M.P. Since thegrounds raised by the petitioner did not turn. out to bevalid, the Administrative Department requested forrejection of his request. However, while perusing thecomments of the Administrative Department, theCommittee came across a statement as per which 13other SADOs, junior to the petitioner, were allocated toMadhya Pradesh. As the Administrative Departmentwas asked to clarify the position, it sought time tocheck/verify the details. The Committee desired thatthe position be verified/checked and accordingly,decided to defer the case till its next meetlnz,

28 Shri Kirti Kumar Jain,RAEO, Department ofFarmers' 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., therepresentation of the petitioner was considered by theCommittee. Shri Jain has contended that certainRAEOs, who were junior to him, have been allocatedto M.P. while he has been allocated to Chhattisgarh.Shri Jain also contended that his application for mutualtransfer has not been considered. No comments wereprovided by the Administrative Department with regardto mutual transfer. However, the AdministrativeDepartment admitted that 16 RAEOs, junior to thepetitioner, seem to have been allocated to M.P.However, the Administrative Department sought timeto further examine the matter. The Committeedesired that the position be verified/checked andaccordingly, decided to defer the case till its nextmeeting.

29 Shri Ram Lal SinghKushwaha, SADO,Department of Farmers'Welfare & AgricultureDev.(W.P. No.1165/06)

In compliance with the directions dated 03.10.07,passed by the Hon'ble High Court of M.P., therepresentation of the petitioner was considered by theCommittee. Shri Kushwaha has contended that 4SADOs viz. Shri Suresh Kumar Jain, Shri L NChoudhary, Shri M K Prajapati and Shri Suresh BabuSharma, who were junior to him, have been allocatedto M.P. while he has been allocated to Chhattisgarh.Administrative Department of the petitioner contendedthat Shri Jain was allocated to M.P. on mutual basisversus Shri Basant Lal Pandey who has been allocatedto Chhattisgarh. Further, Shri Choudhary and ShriPrajapati were allocated to M.P. under ST category

8

CJ1-

••

30 Shri L S Rajput, RAEO,Department of Farmers'Welfare & AgricultureDev.(W.P. No.270S/06)

. \

\(

under domicile/option basis. Further, allocation of ShriSharma was made to M.P. erroneously. However, evenafter rectification of his seniority, State AdvisoryCommittee did not revise his allocation. However,while perusing the comments of the AdministrativeDepartment, the Committee came across a statement asper which 15 SADOs, junior to Shri Kushwaha havebeen allocated to M.P. On seeking clarification, theAdministrative Department sought time to furtherexamine the matter. The Committee desired that theposition be verified/checked and accordingly,decided to defer the case till its next meeting.In compliance with the directions dated 14.12.11,passed by the Hon'ble High Court of M.P., Bench atGwalior, the representation of the petitioner wasconsidered by the Committee. However, theAdministrative Department informed the Committeethat an appeal has been filed on 02.01.13 against theverdict of the Hon'ble High Court. The Committee,accordingly, deferred the case till its next meetingand desired that updated position be placed beforeit.

Shri Atma Ram Arse, The Committee considered the representations of theseRAEO, Department of ten employees of Department of Farmers' Welfare &Farmers' Welfare & Agriculture Development, in which they requested forAgriculture Dev. revising their allocation from Chhattisgarh to M.P. on(Representation) the grounds of belonging to SC/ST category/domiciler---~~~------~--~32 Shri Pramod Kumar of M.P/optee of M.P. However, their AdministrativeNag,RAEO, Department informed the Committee that all of themDepartment of Farmers' belong to Non-State Cadre and as such, noWelfare & Agriculture allocation/revision of allocation of such employees isDev. resorted to under Madhya Pradesh State Reorganisation(Representation) Act. It was further informed that no specific order for~~~~~~~~~----4

33 Shri Hari Mohan Jatav, allocation was made in respect of Non-State CadreRAEO, Department of employees who stood allocated to the respectiveFarmers' Welfare & successor State in which they were working as onAgriculture Dev. 01.11.2000. The Committee took note of the facts(Representation) explained by the. Administrative Department and

~3-:4-+-=S':'""hn~'-::R:-am--e-sh:---:::Pr-'a'-s-ad-:----4viewed that the matter does not fall under itsMaravi, RAEO, purview. Accordingly, the CommitteeDepartment of Farmers' recommended to reject representations of theseWelfare & Agriculture employees.Dev. (Representation)

31

35 Shri Ramesh PrasadGoiya, Manchitrakar,Department of Farmers'Welfare & AgricultureDev. (Representation)

36 Smt. Dashwant Kumre,RAEO, Department of

9

~l/I...,-.,.---/ 'T ,-

(

-". /'

Farmers' Welfare &Agriculture Dev.(W.P. No. 1640212012)

37 Shri Nanas SinghDhurve, RAEO,Department -of Farmers'Welfare & AgricultureDev.(W.P. No.16409/2012)

38 Shri Manoj Kumar Atal,RAEO, Department ofFarmers' Welfare &Agriculture Dev.(W.P. No. 16409/2012)

39 Shri Sita Ram Vasure,RAEO, Department ofFarmers' Welfare &Agriculture Dev.(W.P. No.l6409/2012)

40 Shri Om Prakash Jatav,RAEO, Department ofFarmers' Welfare &Agriculture Dev.(W.P. No. 16409/2012)

41 Shri Ganga Singh Uike,RHEO, Department ofHorticulture(Representation)

42 Shri Kamal Morya,RHEO, Department ofHorticulture(Representation)

43 Shri Shravan KumarChourasiya, RHEO,Department ofHorticulture(Representation)

The Committee considered the representation of ShriUike who requested for revising allocation fromChhattisgarh to M.P. under SC/ST category. Shri Uikehas contended that he is a domicile of M.P. and hasalso opted for M.P. However, AdministrativeDepartment of Shri Uike informed that his contentionsare yet to be checked/verified for which they soughtsome more time. The Committee, accordingly,decided to defer the case till its next meeting anddesired that a detailed report/comments becomj!i1edby then.The Committee considered the representation of ShriMorya who requested for revising allocation fromChhattisgarh to M.P. under SC/ST category. ShriMorya has contended that he is a domicile of M.P. andhas also opted for M.P. Administrative Department ofShri Morya confirmed the claim of Shri Morya.Taking note of this, the Committee recommendedfor revision of allocation of Shri Morya fromChhattisgarh to Madhya Pradesh.The Committee considered the representation of ShriChourasiya who requested for revising allocation fromChhattisgarh to M.P. under SC/ST category. ShriChourasiya has contended that he is a domicile of M.P.and has also opted for M.P. However, AdministrativeDepartment of Shri Chourasiya informed that his

• •

Dr. Pramod Kumar In compliance with the directions of Hon'bleHighDubey, Medical Officer, Court of M.P., the Committee considered theDepartment of Public representations of Dr. Pramod Kumar Dubey and Dr.Health & Family Krishna Kumar Bhargav. However, theirWelfare Administrative Department requested for deferment of(W.P. No.2398/2007) the cases since appeal is being filed against the said~~~~~~~~--~~47 Dr. Krishna Kumar judgment in consultation with Government Counsels.Bhargav, Child The Committee, accordingly, decided to defer theseSpecialist, Department cases till its next meeting and desired that correctof PH & FW and complete position be furnished to it in the nextJW.P. No.1086/051 meeting.

44

45

46

48 Dr. P K Aggarwal, In compliance with the directions dated 15.09.03 ofSenior Medical Officer, Hon'ble High Court of M.P., The CommitteeDepartment of PH & considered the representation of Dr. Aggarwal in whichFW, he contended that his domicile was erroneously shown(W.P. No.21564/2003) 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. andunder A-4 (Juniority) category, he should be allocatedM.P. Administrative Deptt informed the Committeethat it is yet to check/verify the claim of the petitionerand sought time for the same. The Committee,accordingly, decided to defer the matter and desiredthat a detailed report/complete facts be placedbefore it in its next meeting.

Shri Bhawar Lal Rawal,Assistant Grade III,Department ofHorticulture(Representation)

Shri R S Rampure,RHEO, Department ofHorticulture(Representation)

contentions are yet to be checked/verified for whichthey sought some more time. The Committee,accordingly, decided to defer the case till its nextmeeting and desired that a detailed report/comments be compiled by then.The Committee considered the representation of ShriRawal who requested for revising allocation fromChhattisgarh to M.P. under SC/ST category. ShriRawal has contended that he is a domicile of M.P. andhas also opted for M.P. However, AdministrativeDeptt of Shri Rawal informed that his contentions areyet to be checked/verified for which they sought somemore time. The Committee, accordingly, decided todefer the case till its next meeting and desired that adetailed report/comments be eompiled by then.The Committee considered the representation of ShriRampure who requested for revising allocation fromChhattisgarh to M.P. under SC/ST category. ShriRampure has contended that he is a domicile of M.P.and has also opted for M.P. However, AdministrativeDeptt of Shri Rampure informed that his contentionsare yet to be checked/verified and sought some moretime. The Committee, accordingly, decided to deferthe case till its next meeting and desired that adetailed report/comments be compiled by then.

11

;.49

50

51

52

Dr. Rajendra PrasadGupta, Medical Officer,Department of PH &FW.,(W.P. No.7077/2010)

Smt. NeemaRaghuvanshi, MahilaSwasthya Karyakarta,Department of PH &FW.(W.P. No.77112011)

Dr. R.P. Srivastava,Medical Specialist,Department of PH &FW.(W.P. No.4369/2007)

Dr. Ashok Kumar Dixit,Chief Medical Officer,Department of PH &FW.(W.P. No.4996/2006)

Dr. Ramesh KumarNeema, MedicalSpecialist, DepartmentofPH&FW.(W.P.No.183612007)

53

In compliance with the directions dated 14.02.13, theCommittee considered the representation of Smt.Raghuvanshi in which she requested for revision of herallocation on mutual basis. Admin. Deptt. informedthat it is yet to receive a report from the Govt ofChhattisgarh and assured that it would expedite thecase. The Committee, on request from theAdministrative Department, decided to defer thematter and desired that a detailed report/completefacts be placed before it in its next meeting,In compliance with the directions dated 28.02.12 ofHon'ble High Court of M.P., the Committee consideredthe representation of Dr. Srivastava. However, theAdmin. Deptt requested to defer the matter sinceappeal is being filed in the matter, in consultation withthe Govt. Counsel. The Committee decided to deferthe matter and desired that updated position beplaced before it in its next meeting.In compliance with the directions dated 28.02.12 ofHon'ble High Court of M.P., the Committee consideredthe representation of Dr. Dixit. However, theAdministrative Deptt requested to defer the matter tillnext meeting since appeal is being filed in the matter,in consultation with the Govt. Counsel. TheCommittee, accordingly, decided to defer the matterand desired that updated position be placed beforeit in its next meeting,In compliance with the directions dated 30.11.11 of theHon'ble High Court of M.P., the Committee consideredthe representation of Dr. Neema in which he contendedthat his juniors have been retained in M.P. while he hasbeen allocated Chhattisgarh. Administrative Depttaverred that it has yet to check/verify the claim of thepetitioner and sought more time. The Committee,accordingly, decided to defer the matter and desiredthat a detailed report/complete facts of the case beplaced before it in its next meeting.Dr. Gupta has filed a Writ Petition in Hon'ble HighCourt of M.P. citing certain grounds which includeillness of his aged parents and mutual transfer with Dr.T S Shyam. Admin Deptt informed that mutualtransfer with Dr. Shyam is not permissible under theexisting guidelines. However, Administrative Deptt isin the process of filing a detailed Counter Affidavit inthe Hon'ble Court. Taking note of the facts that thematter is sub judice and no representation of Dr.Gupta is pending with the Govt, the Committeedecided to defer the matter and viewed that the casewould be taken for consideration by the Committeein case any such directions are Jdven by the Court.

12

,.'! 54

55

56

57

Shri RDShakya,Compounder,Department of PH &FW/Controller of Food& Drugs(Representation)

Dr. Muhammad IqbalKhan, AMO,Department of AYUSH(W.P. No.757112006)

Dr. Kailash ChandraMahajan, AMO,Department of AYUSH(W.P.No.6775/2006)

Dr. Dinesh KumarShukla, AMO,Department of AYUSH(W.P. No.538112005)

The Committee considered the representation of ShriShakya, in which he requested for revising theirallocation from Chhattisgarh to M.P. on the grounds ofbelonging to SC/ST category/domicile of M.P/optee ofM.P. However, Administrative Department of ShriShakya informed the Committee that he belongs toNon-State Cadre and no allocation/revision ofallocation of such employees is resorted to underMadhya Pradesh State Reorganisation Act. It wasfurther informed that no specific order for allocationwas made in respect of Non-State Cadre employeeswho stood allocated to the respective successor State inwhich they were working as on 01.11.2000. TheCommittee took note of the facts explained by theAdministrative Department and viewed that the matterdoes not fall under its purview. Accordingly, theCommittee recommended to reject representationof Shri Shil!qa.In compliance with the directions dated 15.11.11 of theHon'ble High Court of M.P., the Committee consideredthe representation of Dr. Khan in which he hascontended that his juniors have been retained in M.P.while has been allocated Chhattisgarh. However, theAdministrative Department refuted the claim of thepetitioner and averred that only one of his juniors Dr.Kalvadiya was retained in M.P. and the same was doneunder OBC category. As such, the claim of Dr. Khanwas not genuine. The Committee, taking note of thefacts explained by the Administrative,recommended to reject Dr, Khan's representation.A detailed speaking order shall be issued.In compliance with the directions dated 15.11.11 ofHon'ble High Court of M.P., the Committee consideredthe representation of Dr. Mahajan in which he hascontended that his juniors were retained in M.P. whilehe has been allocated Chhattisgarh. AdministrativeDepartment refuted the claim and stated' that primafacie no junior to Dr. Mahajan has been retained inM.P. However, Administrative Department soughtfurther time to re-examine the matter. TheCommittee, accordingly, decided to defer the matterand desired that a detailed report/complete facts ofthe matter be placed before it in its next meeting.The Committee took up the matter of Dr. Shukla forconsideration as Hon'ble High Court of M.P., vide itsorder dated 15.12.10, had quashed his allocation toChhattisgarh, However, Administrative Department ofShri Shukla informed that an, appeal is being filed inthe matter in consultation with Govt .Counsel andhence, requested for deferment of the matter till appeal

13

58

59

60

Or. Upendra KumarGupta, AMO/Lecturer,Department of AYUSH(W".P.No.2494/2005)

Dr. HarikrishnaAggarwal, AMO,Department of AYUSH(W.P.No.381 112007)

Dr. Aditya NarayanVajpayee, AMO,Department of AYUSH.(W.P.No. 5390/2005)

is disposed by the Court. The Committee,accordingly, decided to defer the matter and desiredthat detailed report be placed before it in its nextmeeting.In compliance with directions dated 13.03.12 of theHon'ble High Court of M.P., the Committee consideredthe representation of Dr. Gupta who has claimed thattwo of his juniors have been retained in M.P. while hehas been allocated Chhattisgarh. Apart from this, hehas been working as Lecturer before the appointed dayi.e. 01.11.2000. Administrative Department informedthat Dr. Dinesh Kumar Pathak, junior to Dr. Gupta, hasbeen allocated Chhattisgarh and Dr. Divendra KumarVishwakarma has been retained in/allocated M.P.under OBC category. As regards Dr. Gupta working asLecturer, it was informed that Dr. Gupta was appointedas Lecturer much later than the appointed date of01.11.2000 and was working as AMO at the time ofallocation. The Committee, in view of the factsexplained by the Administrative Department,recommended to reject the representation of Dr.Gupta. A detailed speaking order shall be issued.In compliance with direction dated 20.07.09 ofHon'bleHigh Court of M.P., the Committee considered therepresentation of Dr. Aggarwal who claimed that hisjuniors have been retained in M.P. while he has beenallocated Chhattisgarh. Administrative Department,with regard to allocation of juniors to M.P., informedthat Dr. S K Rawat has been allocated M.P. on mutualbasis, Dr. Makhan Singh Kushwaha was allocated M.P.due to serious illness/medical hardship, Dr. AbdulKhan was allocated M.P. due to physical disability andDr. Rohini Prasad Mishra, being senior, allocated M.P.The Committee, in view of the explanation made bythe Administrative Department, recommended toreject the representation of Dr. Aggarwal. Adetailed speaking order shall be issued.In compliance with directions dated 15.12.10 ofHon'ble High Court of M.P., the Committee consideredthe representation of Dr. Vajpayee in which he claimedthat his junior Dr. Mahesh Chandra Sharma has beenallocated M.P. while he has been allocatedChhattisgarh. Dr. Vajpayee also sought allocation toM.P. due to illness of his mother. Department ofAYUSH requested that since appeal is being filedagainst the said judgment, the matter be referred. TheCommittee, in view of the facts explained by theAdministrative Department, decided to defer thematter and desired that updated position be placedbefore it in its next meeting,

14cp

rIft·t-

b-F.•..·

,.61

Dr. Kedar Nath Mishra,AMO, Department ofAYUSH(W.P. No.1037/2006)

Dr. Kunwar Pal Singh, In compliance with the directions dated 15.11.11 ofAMO, Department of Hon'ble High Court of M.P., the Committee consideredAYUSH the representations of Dr. Kunwar Pal Singh, Dr.

I--_+-C~W..;...'~P";""N::-:-::-,0.:,.:.6.;-77.,;...4,.:...,/2,....:0....,;-0::-'6}'-:::--IRajesh Joshi and Dr. Vishambhar Dayal ChaturvediDr. Rajesh Joshi, AMO, who have contended that AMOs, junior to them, haveDepartment of AYUSH, been retained in M.P. while they have been allocated to(W.P. No.3065/2006) Chhattisgarh. However, Department of AYUSH

J--6~3-+~D:-r""'.V::-:::-is7'h-am~bh:-a-r-::D:-a-y.<....a:-1-\ initially refuted their claim and averred that it has yet toChaturvedi, AMO, check/verify their claim in detail for which it soughtDepartment of AYUSH further time. The Committee, accordingly, decided(W.P. No.3905/2007) to defer the matter and desired that a detailed

report! complete facts be placed before it in its nextmeetin~.

64

62

Dr. Vishnu Dutt Mishra,AMO, Department ofAYUSH(W.P.No.549/2006)

The case was considered in earlier meeting of SACwhen it was recommended for rejection in view of thecomments received from Department of AYUSH. TheAdministrative Department was requested forfurnishing draft Speaking Order which is still awaited.The matter was deferred again with direction to theDepartment of AYUSH to provide draft SpeakingOrder without any further delay.

65 Dr. Suresh KumarSharma, AMO,Department of AYUSH(W.P. No.5094/2005)

Dr. Sharma filed a Writ Petition in Hon'ble High Courtof M.P. in which Counter Affidavit was filed by Unionof India and State Government. Since no furtherprogress of the Court case was known, StateGovernment was requested to furnish a copy ofdirections of the Court/representation, if any.Department of AYUSH has now informed that Dr.Sharma has since retired on attaining the age ofsuperannuation on 30.06.13. The Committee tooknote of the position and decided to drop the matterfrom the agenda.

66 Dr. Devendra PratapSingh, AMO,Department of AYUSH(W.P. No.3793/2008)

The case was considered in earlier meeting of StateAdvisory Committee when it was recommended forrejection in view of the comments received fromDepartment of AYUSH. The AdministrativeDepartment was requested for furnishing draftSpeaking Order which is still awaited. The matterwas deferred again with direction to theDepartment of AYUSH to provide draft SpeakingOrder without any further delay.

67 The case was considered in earlier meeting of SACwhen it was recommended for rejection in view of thecomments received from Department of AYUSH. TheAdministrative Department was requested forfurnishing draft Speaking Order which is still awaited.The matter was deferred again with direction to theDepartment of AYUSH to provide draft SpeakingOrder without any further delay.

lS~

.9

Shri Anand Kumar The committee took up the matter of Shri Mishra andMishra, Sub-Engineer, Shri Bhadoria for consideration as Hon'ble High CourtPWD of M.P., vide its order dated 15.12.10, had quashed

I--_+-(.LW,-.:,;..'P' N--:-,--o._1_48--=-9-:-/2_0:-0~5)<-----jtheir allocation to Chhattisgarh. However,70 Shri Rajveer Singh Administrative Department informed that an appeal is

Bhadoria, Sub- being filed 10 the matter in consultation withEngineer, PWD Government Counsel and hence, requested for(W.P. No.39612006) deferment of the matter till appeal is disposed by the

Court. The Committee, accordingly, decided todefer the matter and desired that detailed report beplaced before it in its next meeting.

68

69

72 Shri Ashok KumarNavare, Assistant GradeIII, PWD(Representation)

In compliance with the directions dated 28.02.12 ofHon'ble High Court of M.P., the.Committee consideredthe representation of Shri Sharma in which hecontended that his juniors were retained in M.P. whilehe was allocated Chhattisgarh. However, theAdministrative Department informed that Shri VinodKumar Srivastava and Shri Chandra Shekhar Dubeywere allocated M.P. on mutual basis. Further, ShriBrijendra Sharma and Shri Chandra Shekhar wereallocated Chhattisgarh under A-4 (Juniority) category.Shri Shankar Singh Solanki was allocated M.P. underSC category. Shri Brijendra Yadav and Shri SurendraKumar Patel were allocated M.P. under OBC category.As such, the Administrative Department refuted theclaim of the petitioner. The Committee took note ofthe position explained by the AdministrativeDepartment and recommended to reject therepresentation of Shri Pramod Kumar Sharma. Adetailed speaking order shall be issued.

I

Shri Pramod KumarSharma, Sub-Engineer,PWD(W.P.No.3337/2006)

71 Shri Shailendra Parmar,Sub-Engineer, PWD(W.P. No.143/2013

In compliance with directions dated 09.01.13 ofHon'ble High Court of M.P., the Committee consideredthe representation of Shri Parmar in which hecontended that two of his juniors were allocated M.P.under the OBC category while he was allocatedChhattisgarh, under General Category. AdministrativeDepartment, having examined his case, admitted thatrequest of Shri Parmar is genuine. The Committee, inlight of the position explained by the AdministrativeDepartment, recommended to revise allocation ofShri Parmar from Chhattisgarh to MadhyaPradesh.The Committee considered the representation of ShriNavare in which he requested for revising hisallocation from Chhattisgarh to M.P. on the grounds ofbelonging to Scheduled caste and domicile of M.P.However, Administrative Department of Shri Navareinformed the Committee that he belongs to Non-StateCadre and as such, no allocation/revision of allocationof such employees is resorted to under

16

•\ I

Madhya Pradesh State Reorganisation Act. It wasfurther informed that no specific order for allocationwas made in respect of Non-State Cadre employeeswho stood allocated to the respective successor State inwhich they were working as on 01.11.2000: TheCommittee perused the records and observed that sinceShri Navare was working in Madhya Pradesh as on01.11.2000, he was to be retained in M.P. Since theAdministrative Department did not further anyjustification for relieving Shri Navare for joiningChhattisgarh on a later date i.e. 05.11.2000, theCommittee decided to defer the matter and desiredthat a detailed report/complete facts be placedbefore it in its next meeting.

73 Shri Bhuvan Prakash The Committee considered the representations of theseNirapure, Constable eight employees of Department of Home, whoRadio, Department of requested for revising allocation from Chhattisgarh toHome M.P. under SC/ST category/domicile/optee of M.P.

1--_~(R~e~L-r..:.e~se_n_ta~t_io_n~)__ --l As the Department of Home confirmed their claims,74 Shri Ram Ji Bhagelkar, the Committee recommended for revision of

Constable Radio, allocation of all these employees from ChhattisgarhDepartment of Home to Madhya Pradesh under : policy for SC/ST(Representation) employees.~-~~~----~--~

75 Shri Sukh DayalDeheria, HeadConstable Radio,Department of Home(Representation)

76 Shri MatadeenKaroriya, ConstableRadio, Department ofHome(Representation)

77 Shri Umendra KumarUike, Constable Radio,Department of Home(Representation)

78 ShriMangi LalMalviya, Constable,Department of Home.(Representation)

79 Shri JagmohanChoudhary, Constable,Department of Home(Re~resentation)

80 Shri Ram JeevanChichware, ConstableRadio, Department of

. Home(Representation)

, ,

;/

I• 81

82

83

84 Shri R K Sayre, AssttGrade I,Department of AnimalHusbandry(Representation)

The Committee considered the representation of ShriMarkam who requested for revising his allocation fromChhattisgarh to M.P. under SC/ST category. ShriMarkam has contended that he is a domicile of M.P.and has also opted for M.P. However, Department ofHome informed that it is yet to check/verify thecontentions of the employee and sought some moretime. The Committee, accordingly, decided to deferthe case till its next meeting and desired that adetailed report/comments be placed before it in itsnext meeting.The Committee considered the representation of ShriMarko who requested for revising his allocation fromChhattisgarh to M.P. under SC/ST category. ShriMarko has contended that he is a domicile of M.P. andhas also opted for M.P. However, Department ofHome informed that it is yet to check/verify thecontentions of the employee and sought some moretime. The Committee, accordingly, decided to deferthe case till its next meeting and desired that adetailed report/comments be placed before it in itsnext meeting.In compliance with directions dated 13.03.12 ofHon'ble High Court of M.P., the Committee consideredthe representation of Dr Sharma who contended thatthree of his juniors Dr A K Verma, Dr SatynderaSrivastava and Dr M S Salwar were retained in M.P.while he was allocated Chhattisgarh. AdministrativeDepartment averred that Dr Verma, Dr Salwar and DrSrivastava were given ACP· with effect from18.11.2000, 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 wereallocated M.P., were in lower pay scale on the crucialdate and were granted ACP with effect from a laterdate. A few other Doctors, who were junior to DrSharma, were retained in M.P. due to other reasons onnot under A-4 category (juniority). Accordingly,Administrative Department averred that the groundsraised by Dr Sharma in his representation are not valid.The Committee, in view of the facts explained by theAdministrative Department, decided to reject therepresentation of Dr Sharma. A detailed speakingorder shall be issued.The representations of Shri Sayre and Shri Kurve wereconsidered by the Committee. The representationistshave contended that they belong to SC/ST category andare domicile of M.P. The Administrative Departmentsought further time for checking/verifying their claims.

Shri Thakur PrasadMarkam, ASI,Department of Home(Representation)

Shri Dubey SinghMarko, Constable,Department of Home(Representation)

Dr. Brij KishoreSharma, Vet. Asstt.Surgeon, Department ofAnimal Husbandry(Writ AppealNo.427/2011)

1~

/~ i!-

rJ',;'-,

./ '

r

•

87

88

89

85

Shri Virendra KumarSrivastava, FisheriesOfficer, Department ofFisheries(Writ AppealNo.23112012)

Shri Ashok KumarKurve, Asstt Vet FieldOfficer, Department ofAnimal Husbandry(Representation)

86 Shri Rajneesh Jain,Planning Officer,Department of SchoolEducation(W.P.No.13347/2004)Shri Muna Lal Ahirwar,Pradhan Pathak,Department of SchoolEducation(Representation)

Shri Mohd. Tariq AliKhan, Asstt Grade III,Department ofTechnical Education(Representation)

Shri Balwant SinghThakur, Bhritya,Department of HigherEducation/GAD(Representation)

90

The Committee, accordingly, decided to defer thematter and desired that detailed report/completefacts be placed before it in its next meeting.

It was observed that order revising allocation of ShriJain from Chhattisgarh to Madhya Pradesh has alreadybeen issued. The Committee, therefore, decided todrop the case from the agenda.

The Committee considered the representation in whichShri Ahirwar requested for revising allocation fromChhattisgarh to M.P. as he belongs to SC category andis a domicile of M.P. The Administrative Departmentsought deferment of the case as it required further timefor detailed checking/verification of the claim. TheCommittee, accordingly, decided to defer the matterand desired that a detailed report/factual positionbe placed before it in its next meeting.The Committee considered the representation of ShriKhan who requested for revision of allocation fromChhattisgarh to M.P. on the grounds that he is a victimof Bhopal Gas Tragedy and has received acompensation of Rs.50,000/-. Though the case seemsto be covered under the existing guidelines,confirmation of the claim of the reprsentationist wasnot available from the Administrative Department.General Administration Department, accordingly,sought further time for checking the position. TheCommittee, therefore, decided to defer the matterand desired that factual position be verified andplaced before it in its next meeting.The Committee considered the representation of ShriThakur who argued that at the time of allocation, hewas retained in Madhya Pradesh as his service was notregularised at that time. General AdministrativeDepartment informed the Committee that his case is fitfor allocation to Chhattisgarh, as requested by him, ashe is a class IV employee. The Committee,accordingly, recommended to revise allocation ofShri Thakur from Madhya Pradesh toChhattisgarh.In compliance with the directions dated 27.04.12 ofHon'ble High Court of M.P., the Committee consideredthe representation of Shri Srivastava who requested forrevision of allocation as his juniors were allocated M.P.while he was allocated Chhattisgarh. TheAdministrative Department, however, contended thatjunior officers, as named by Shri Srivastava in hisrepresentation, were allocated M.P. in the junior pay-

19

C!J-

,.scale i.e. Rs.4500-7000 and as such, the claim of ShriSrivastava is not valid. Besides, Shri Jai Singh Pariharwas allocated M.P. on mutual basis and not under A-4category. Further, Shri Surya Mani Srivastava wasretained in M.P. due to his ensuring superannuation.The Committee, in view of the facts explained by theAdministrative Department, recommended to rejectthe representation of Shri Srivastava. A detailedspeaking order shall be issued.

91 Shri Rajesh KumarPathak, FisheriesInspector, Departmentof Fisheries(Writ AppealNo.494120 12)

In compliance with the directions dated 3L08.12 ofHon'ble High Court of M.P., the Committee consideredthe representation of Shri Pathak who requested forrevision of allocation as his juniors were retained inM.P. The Administrative Department admitted thatjunior officers were given ACP with retrospectiveeffect and hence, the claim of Shri Pathak is genuine.The Committee, accordingly, recommended torevise the allocation of Shri Pathak fromChhattisgarh to MadI!l'.a Pradesh.

92 Shri Trilok ChandraGupta, Panchayat &Social EducationOrganiser, Departmentof Social Welfare(W.P. No.769/2005)

In compliance with the directions dated 05.05.11 ofHon'ble High Court of M.P., the Committee consideredthe representation of Shri Gupta who requested forrevision of allocation stating that his juniors have beenalloatedM.P. while he has been allocated toChhattisgarh. The Administrative Department,however, sought further time for checking/verifying theposition regarding contentions of the petitioner. TheCommittee, accordingly, decided to defer the matterand desired that factual position be verified andplaced before it in its next meetin~.

93 Muhammad SaleemKhan, Asstt. Grade III,Deptt. of Housing &Environment(W.P. No.4747/2006)

In compliance with directions dated 29.10.07 ofHon'ble High Court of M.P., the Committee consideredthe representation of Shri Khan who requested forrevision of allocation on the grounds of being victim ofBhopal Gas Tragedy and also under spouse policy.The Administrative Department confirmed the positionof his being a recipient of Rs.50,0001- as compensationfor being Bhopal Gas Tragedy. The Committee, inview of the facts explained by the AdministrativeDepartment, recommended for revision ofallocation of Shri Khan from Chhattisgarh toMadl!Ya Pradesh.

94 Shri Vijay Pal SinghBhadoriya, Sub-Engineer, Departmentof Public HealthEngineering(W.P. No.2672/2005)

In compliance of the direction dated 14.03.13 ofHon'ble High Court of M.P., the Committee consideredthe representation of Shri Bhadoriya who requested forrevision of allocation under spouse policy and alsosince his juniors were allocated Madhya Pradesh. TheAdministrative Department, however, stated that thepetitioner's wife is not a government employee and assuch, the case is not covered under ~ouseJ)olicy. As

20OL-

96

97

95

Shri Sarad Sardar, AssttGrade II, Department ofTribal & SCDevelopment(Representation)

Shri Mukesh KumarNimje, Tracer,Department of PublicHealth Engineering(Representation)

Shri Raja Ram Jatav,Tracer, Department ofPublic HealthEngineering(Representation)

Shri Anil Kumar Goyal,Asstt Grade III, Deptt ofCommerce & Industry(Representation)

98 Shri Shyam SundarAhirwar, AssistantGrade III, Departmentof Commerce &Industry(Representation)

99

regards allocation of juniors to M.P., the Admin. Depttsought more time for examination. The Committee,accordingly, decided to defer the matter and desiredthat complete factual position be placed before it inits next meeting.Shri Nimje represented that he belongs to ScheduledTribe and is a domicile of M.P. Besides, he alsoaverred that his wife is working as an AssistantTeacher in Govt College, Anup Pur, M.P. TheAdministrative Department informed that Shri Nimjewas initially allocated to M.P. as per his option. Beforeissue of TFAL, he applied for mutual transfer toChhattisgarh. Therefore, he was allocated toChhattisgarh on mutual basis on the recommendationsof the then allocation Committee. It was brought to thenotice of the Committee that he had once availed thefacility of revision of allocation. Now, again ShriNimje has requested for revision of allocation fromChhattisgarh to M.P. The Administrative Department,however, sought further time for checking/verifying theposition regarding contentions of the petitioner. TheCommittee, accordingly, decided to defer the matterand desired that factual position be verified andplaced before it in its next meeting.The Committee considered the representation of ShriJatav as he contended that he belongs to SC categoryand is a domicile of M.P. Administrative Departmentconfirmed this position. The Committee, accordingly,recommended to revise allocation of Shri Jatavfrom Chhattisgarh to Madliya Pradesh under policefor SC/ST employees.Shri Goyal contended that he belongs to SC categoryand is domicile of M.P. However, AdministrativeDepartment sought deferment of the matter asverification of caste certificate was still to be done.The Committee, accordingly, decided to defer thematter and desired that factual position be placedbefore it in its next meeting.The Committee considered the representation of ShriAhirwar as he contended that he belongs to SCcategory and is a domicile of M.P. AdministrativeDepartment confirmed this position. The Committee,accordingly, recommended to revise allocation ofShri Ahirwar from Chhattisgarh to MadhyaPradesh under policy for SC/ST employees.The Committee considered the representation of ShriSardar as he averred that he belongs to SC category andis a domicile of Bhopal, M.P. However, theAdministrative Department, after verifying the records,contended that Shri Sardar is a domicile of Akola,

21

O?

•100

101

102

103

104

105

Shri Bhagvat PrasadKhande, Investigator,Department of Tribal &SC Development(Representation)

Shri Chandra KishoreBhagel, DeputyDirector, Department ofEmployment &Training(Representation)Shri Jagdish PrasadYadav, Accountant,Department of RuralIndustries(Writ PetitionNo.6687/2003)

Shri Devi Lal Kherete,Asstt Grade III, Deptt ofRural Industries(Representation)

Shri Reval SinghSolanki, AssistantDirector, Deptt of RuralIndustries(Representation)

Shri P L Kemiya,Inspector, Weight &Measures, Deptt ofFood & Civil Supplies(Representation)

Maharashtra and had opted for Chhattisgarh at the timeof allocation. The Committee, accordingly,recommended to reject the representation of ShriSardar. A detailed speaking order shall be issued.The Committee considered the representation of ShriKhande as he contended that he belongs to SCcategory, is a domicile of Chhattisgarh and had alsoopted for Chhattisgarh. Administrative Departmentconfirmed this position. The Committee,accordingly, recommended to revise allocation ofShri Khande from Madhya Pradesh toChhattisgarh under policy for SC/ST employees.The Committee considered the representation of ShriBhagel who contended that he belongs to SC categoryand had opted for M.P. Domicile of the employee isnot known. The Committee deferred the matter tillnext meeting in the absence of any comments fromthe Administrative Department.In compliance with the directions dated 21.10.10 ofHon'ble High Court of M.P., the Committee consideredthe representation of Shri Yadav who claimed that hisjunior Shri Satish Bilore has been allocated M.P.Administrative Department confirmed the positionand the Committee, accordingly, recommended torevise the allocation of Shri Yadav fromChhattisgarh to Madhya Pradesh.Shri Kherete has contended that he is an SC employeeand is domicile of Guna, M.P. and also opted for M.P.Administrative Department confirmed the positionand the Committee, accordingly, recommended torevise his allocation from Chhattisgarh to MadhyaPradesh under policy for SC/ST employees.Shri Reval Singh Solanki requested for revision ofallocation from Chhattisgarh to M.P. being an STemployee and domicile of M.P. Accordingly, thematter was included in the agenda finalised for meetingof the Committee scheduled for 20.09.13. However,before the Committee could consider therepresentation, Shri Solanki submitted anotherrepresentation on 11.09.13 withdrawing his earlierrepresentation and prayed that he wants to continuein Chhattisgarh. The Committee, accordingly,dropped the case from the agenda.Shri Kemiya contended that he belongs to SC categoryand is domicile of Sagar, M.P. However,Administrative Department sought deferment of thematter as verification of caste certificate was still to bedone. The Committee, accordingly, decided to deferthe matter and desired that factual position beplaced before it in its next meeting.

22C0-

Sirsant,Sub-Engineer, Deptt ofRural Development(OA No.3292/2002W.P. No.20505/2003)

M.P. to Chhattisgarh stating that he is a domicile ofChhattishgarh and had opted for Chhattisgarh.Administrative Department of the petitioner, however,sought more time for checking/verifying his claimsince his option is not readily traceable. TheCommittee, accordingly, decided to defer the matterand desired that complete facts of the case be placedbefore it in its next

107 Harish Daryani,Assistant Grade III,Deptt of RuralDevelopment(Representation)

108 Shri Chand

109 Shri Mohan SharanKhare, Sub-Engineer,(Writ Appeal No.22512012)(Representation)

Malviya, Tracer, Depttof Revenue, LandRecords(Representation)

The Committee considered the representation of ShriDaryani furthered on the grounds of being a victim ofBhopal Gas Tragedy and recipient of Rs.50,000/- ascompensation. Shri Daryani has prayed for revision ofallocation from Chhattisgarh to M.P. Though the caseseems to be covered under the existing guidelines,confirmation of the claim of the reprsentationist wasnot available from the Administrative Department,General Administration Department, accordingly,sought further time for checking the position. TheCommittee, therefore, decided to defer the matterand desired that factual position be verified and

before it in its nextThe Committee representation of ShriMalviya who requested for revision of allocation fromChhattisgarh to M.P. stating that he belongs to SCcategory and is also a domicile/optee of M.P.However, the matter had to be deferred due to theabsence of any comments from the AdministrativeDepartment. General Administration Departmentsought more time for verifying the claim of therepresentationist. The Committee accordinglydecided to defer the matter and desired thatposition be verified and placed before it in its next

On receipt of the directions dated 04.05.12 of Hon'bleHigh Court of M.P. for reconsideration of therepresentation ofthe 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 furthertime for the same. The Committee, therefore, decidedto defer the matter and desired that complete factsof the case be before it in its next

**********

••"

ANNEXURE "A"

LIST OFATTENDEES

1. Shri Manoj Joshi, Joint Secretary, Government of India, New Delhi - i

Chairman, State Advisory Committee, M.P.2. Shri K.Suresh, Principal Secretary, Department of General Administration,'

Government of Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal, M.P.3. Shri Manish Singh, Secretary, Department of Water Resources,

Government of Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal, M.P.4. Shri Vinod Singh, Secretary, Department of Tribal Welfare, Government of

Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal, M.P.5. Shri K.R. Mishra, Additional Secretary, Department of General

Administration, Government of Chhattisgarh, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.6. Shri O.P. Tanwar, Additional Secretary, Department of Horticulture,

Government of Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal, M.P.7. Shri Rajesh Kaul, Deputy Secretary, Department of General

Administration, Government of Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal, M.P.8. Shri A.K. Malhotra, Under Secretary, DoPT, Government of India, New

Delhi.9. Shri B.K. Chandel, Deputy Secretary, Department of Food, Government of

Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal, M.P.10. Shri M.K. Shukla, S.E. (Admin), Department of Public Works. Govt of

Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal.11. Dr. S.G. Ishtiaq, Deputy Director, Deptt of AYUSH, Govt of M.P., Bhopal.12. Dr. S.P. Singh, Deputy Director, Department of Public Health & Family

Welfare, Govt of Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal.13. Shri H.N. Ahirwar, DSP Radio, Department of Home (Police Telecom),

Govt of Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal.14. Shri S.K. Jain, Controller, Weights & Measures, Department Food, Civil

Supplies & Consumer Affairs, Govt. of Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal.15. Shri D.P. Agraiya, Under Secretary, Commerce and Industry, Government

of Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal, M.P.16. Shri Rajendra K. Hirodiya, SE (Admin.), Department of Public Health

Engineering, Govt of Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal.17. Shri Purushottam Sharma, ADA, Department of Farmers' Welfare &

Agriculture Development.18. Smt. Kamla Upadhyay, Under Secretary, Department of Home,

Government of M.P., Bhopal, M.P.19. Shri Dinesh, Section Officer, SR-I, DOPT, Govt, of India, New Delhi.20. Dr. Arvind Chaturvedi, Deptt of Animal Husbandry, Govt of M.P., Bhopal.21. Smt. Shobha Ivanati, Department of Fish eries, Govt of Madhya Pradesh,

Bhopal.**********

~