SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Headnote Court Copy Facts Arguments Court observation Judicial Analysis Case Map Category Hierarchy Table of Content
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(MP) 123293

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR
Vishal Dhagat, J
Sikal Chand Maravi – Appellant
Versus
State of Madhya Pradesh – Respondent
WRIT PETITION No. 43312 of 2026



Important Points

The Court directed the respondents to consider the petitioner's representation for counting of services and pass a speaking order within 90 days, specifically taking into account the precedent set by the Apex Court in the case of Punjab School Education Board vs. Satnam Singh.

Subject

Service Law - Counting of Service

Act Referred

Headnote

(A) Service Matters - Counting of Service - Direction to consider representation - Where a petitioner seeks counting of services based on a precedent of the Apex Court, the appropriate remedy is to direct the authorities to consider the representation and pass a speaking order within a stipulated timeframe. (Para 4)

Issues: Whether the respondents should be directed to consider the petitioner's representation for counting of services in light of the judgment in Punjab School Education Board vs. Satnam Singh.

Legal Category Hierarchy

  • constitutional law
    • writ jurisdiction (Para 1)
  • administrative law
    • service law
      • service benefits (Para 1, 4)
  • practice and procedure
    • judicial review (Para 4)

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Praveen Kumar Verma
For the Respondents: Girish Prakash Kekre

Table of Contents

1. Petitioner seeks directions for counting service duration for benefits by considering a pending representation in light of judicial precedents. (Para 1 )

2. The state submits that the pending representation regarding service counting shall be considered in accordance with the law. (Para 2 )

3. The court directed the authorities to decide the petitioner's representation via a speaking order, mandating consideration of specific cited legal precedents. (Para 4 )

4. Administrative authorities have a duty to consider representations and pass reasoned orders while giving due regard to relevant binding judicial precedents. (Para 4 )

5. The petition is disposed of with a direction to the authorities to decide the representation by a speaking order within ninety days. (Para 4 , 5 )

6. Does a writ court have the authority to direct the consideration of a pending service representation?

Yes, a writ court exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 may direct authorities to consider and decide a pending representation through a speaking order within a specified timeframe. (Para 1 , 4 )

7. Is an authority required to consider cited judicial precedents when deciding an administrative representation?

Yes, when directed by the court, an authority must specifically take into consideration the judgments cited by the petitioner while deciding the representation in accordance with the law. (Para 4 )

ORDER

Petitioner has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India making a prayer to issue direction to respondents/authorities to consider his pending representation. Representation is filed for counting of services between 1993-2026 in line with judgment passed by Apex Court in case of Punjab School Education Board and another Vs. Satnam Singh and others passed in Civil Appeal No.6865/2022.

2. Govt. Advocate for the State submitted that representation shall be considered in accordance with law.

3. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

4. Considering the aforesaid submissions, writ petition is disposed off directing respondents/authorities to consider representation of petitioner and pass speaking order within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order passed today. Order be communicated to petitioner. This Court has not expressed any opinion on merits of the case. While deciding the representation, judgment submitted by petitioner in case of Punjab School Education Board and another Vs. Satnam Singh and others passed in Civil Appeal No. 6865/2022 be taken into consideration.

5. Writ Petition is disposed off.

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top