- (1.)This writ appeal under section 2 (I) of the M. P. Uchcha Nyayalaya ( Khand Nyayapeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 preferred by the appellants is directed against the impugned order of the learned Single Judge dated 27-9-2010 in Writ Petition No. 1720/10 (s) allowing the writ petition in favour of the respondent by quashing the impugned orders (Annexures P-l and P-2 to the writ petition) pertaining to the respondent.
(2.)Briefly stated, the facts of the case relevant for the disposal of this writ appeal are that the respondent is working as Forest Ranger in Lok Vaniki Mission under the Forest Department of the State of Madhya Pradesh. He was granted exemption from his posting in the 'working plan' by virtue of order of the appellants dated 11-8-1999, Annexure P-7 to the writ petition at page 43 of the paper book. This exemption from his posting in the 'working plan' was granted to him in terms of policy of the appellants contained in office memorandum No. F-3-428/94/10-1 dated 22-3-1995. Lateron, the appellants vide office order dated 5-10-2005, Annexure A/2 at page 13 of the paper book, withdrew the benefit of exemption granted to the forest rangers from their posting in the 'working plan' in terms of their earlier policy dated 22-3-1595, referred above. Pursuant thereto, the appellants vide orders (Annexures P-l and P-2 to the writ petition) posted the respondent in the 'working plan', aggrieved wherefrom the respondent had filed a writ petition being W. P. No. 1720/10 (s) which was allowed by the learned Single Judge vide impugned order mainly for the reason that the exemption from posting in the 'working plan' already granted to the forest rangers cannot be withdrawn retrospectively and the policy of the appellants not to grant exemption to the forest rangers in terms of their earlier policy dated 22-3-1995 would apply only prospectively.
(3.)The learned Single Judge at the Main Seat relying on the impugned drder of the learned Single Judge of the Bench at Gwalior dated 27-9-2010 allowed two writ petitions of two other similarly situated forest rangers namely Sudheer Singh and Ram Lal Sharma being Writ Petitions bearing numbers 7121 and 7672 of 2010 respectively vide order dated 12-10-2010. The appellants aggrieved by the said order of the learned Single Judge at the Main Seat preferred a writ appeal bearing W.A.1320/10 which was dismissed by the Division Bench headed by Hon'ble the Chief Justice vide order dated 5-1-2011. While dismissing the said writ appeal of the appellants the Division Bench took note of the orders passed by the appellants in the cases of forest rangers S/s Anoop Parashar and P. K. Khatri in whose cases the appellants themselves have recalled their order of posting in the 'working plan' on the ground that their Policy of 5-10-2005 withdrawing the exemption from posting in 'working plan' would not govern cases where exemption from posting in 'working plan' has already been granted by the Department to the forest rangers. Relevant portion of the order of the Division Bench at the Main Seat is extracted below :
"The learned counsel appearing for the State submits that the representation of the respondent No. 1 had rightly been rejected by the authorities as the exemption from posting in the working plan had subsequently been withdrawn by a policy decision of the State Government dated 5-10-2005 and, therefore, the petitioner cannot claim any exemption from posting in the working plan area. However, on a specific query being made, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the appellant/State, does not deny the fact that Shri Anoop Parashar and Shri P. K Khatri have been granted exemption from posting in the working plan subsequent to the policy decision of the State dated 5-10-2005 on the ground that it does not have a retrospective effect. The learned counsel for the appellant/State has failed to point out as to how the cases of Shri Anoop Parashar and Shri P. K. Khatri are different from that of the petitioner. Therefore, on the ground of parity the petitioner/respondent is entitled to receive the same and similar treatment which has been extended to other similarly placed persons/employees. The appellant/State cannot now contend after extending the benefits to other persons that the same cannot be applicable in the case of petitioner/respondent without showing any reasonable basis for such differential treatment. We, therefore, do not find any error in the order of the learned Single Judge."