SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2020 Supreme(MP) 964

SUJOY PAUL
Ajit Singh – Appellant
Versus
State of M. P. – Respondent


Advocates:
Ajay Mishra with Satyendra Jyotishi for petitioner; A.P. Singh, Deputy Advocate General for respondent/State.

ORDER

1. With the consent of the parties, the matter is heard finally.

2. This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution assails the order dated 22.6.2020 whereby the petitioner is directed to work at District Umariya against the vacant post of Programme Officer. It was directed that new contract of petitioner be executed at District Umariya.

3. Criticizing this order, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that impugned order dated 22.6.2020 itself makes it clear that as per the condition of contract, the work of contractual employees is to be extracted/taken at the same place where he was appointed.

4. By placing reliance on the document dated 21.5.2020 Annexure RJ-1, it is argued that the apex body, i.e., the Directorate of Panchayat and Rural Development Department in video conferencing decided to extend the contract for a period for one year. As per this policy decision taken at the apex level, the subordinate authorities including the Jila Panchayat, Katni is now required to undertake the consequential ministerial exercise and enter into the consequential contract relating to the extension of service. Accordingly, by order dated 22.5.2020 Annexure RJ-2, the appli

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top