The Madhya Pradesh High Court on Monday disposed of a PIL highlighting irregularities in the grant of compensation to labour card holders in the event of their death. The Court directed the Principal Secretary Labour to ensure concrete action in this matter and set a time limit of two months to accomplish this.

The case was heard by the division bench of Chief Justice Mohammad Rafique and Justice Vijay Kumar Shukla.

During the hearing, Advocate Devendra Kumar Tripathi, appeared for PIL activist Tulsiram Patel, the former sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Ramgadha, resident of District Damoh, and Deputy Advocate General Swapnil Ganguly appeared for the state.

It was argued on behalf of the petitioner that on the death of the labourer, there has been a provision to distribute compensation to his family members. There was a lot of irregularities in this regard. Under these, many ineligible people were paid, while the actual beneficiaries were left out.

Therefore, this irregularity was reported to the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Sagar. When concrete action was missing, a fresh complaint was sent to the Labour Commissioner, Indore. He took the matter seriously and issued an inquiry directive to Assistant Labour Commissioner, Sagar in September 2019. Assistant Labour Commissioner, Sagar duly sent the report after investigation to the Labour Commissioner, Indore.

Despite this, concrete action against the culprits was awaited in case of irregularity in the compensation in death cases of labour card holders. Hence, the petitioner approached the High Court after making complaint to the Chief Minister.

Also Read: Madhya Pradesh High Court rejects stand-up comic Munawar Faruqui’s bail plea for hurting religious sentiments

After considering the entire matter, the High Court directed the Principal Secretary Labour to ensure concrete action against the culprits based on the investigation report in the case.

The Madhya Pradesh High Court on Monday disposed of a petition seeking financial assistance to young and needy lawyers of Gwalior with the remark that the High Court cannot direct the Bar Association. The Court, however, said the State Bar Council is free to act in this regard as per rules.

The division bench of Chief Justice Mohammad Rafique and Justice Vijay Kumar Shukla heard the petition. Advocate Rajiv Sharma, appeared on behalf of the Petitioner Hemant Singh Rana, a resident of Gwalior, and Deputy Advocate General Swapnil Ganguly on behalf of the state.

It was argued by the petitioner’s counsel that the physical hearing has been closed due to the threat of the Covid-19 epidemic. Limited hearings are being conducted only through video conferencing of important matters. In such a situation, young and needy lawyers want financial help.

It is contended that even though the sufficient money is lying in the
coffers of the High Court Bar Association, it has not been disbursed to young and needy advocates because the elected body of the Bar Association has been replaced by a 5-members Adhoc Committee constituted by the State Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh. At the same time, it is contended that the regular election to the Bar Association is scheduled to take place on March 5, 2021.

Also Read: Allahabad HC restrains Uttar Pradesh Police from acting against inter-faith couple

After considering the whole matter, the High Court disposed of the petition with the instruction that now that the notification of election to the High Court bar has been issued, the High Court is not in a position to intervene in this regard as per rules. However, the State Bar Council, which constitutes an ad-hoc committee, is free to act in this regard as per rules.

New Delhi (ILNS): The Madhya Pradesh High Court today dismissed the petition of a person seeking appointment to the post of Guest Teacher, because he did not have an appointment letter. The court also made it clear that appointment cannot be sought merely because the name is mentioned in the list of selected applicants.  For this, the issue of an appointment letter is also necessary.

The division bench of Chief Justice Sanjay Yadav (Acting) and Justice Vijay Kumar Shukla was hearing advocate Sandeep Kumar Mishra, on behalf of petitioner Sunil Kumar Sharma.

The counsel argued that the petitioner is an MPhil degree holder and has done commendable performance in the field of sports. He appeared in the online examination of guest Teacher in 2018-19.  He was successful, but was not provided with an appointment letter. Therefore, an order for the appointment should be issued. 

Deputy Advocate General Swapnil Ganguly appeared on behalf of the state. He opposed the petition to the point of lack of appointment letter.

The court agreed with the argument and dismissed the petition.  The court made it clear that even if the petitioner appeared in the examination and was successful, he should have an appointment letter. If the petition had been filed with the appointment letter, the petition could have been called meaningful and a relief order could have been given. But it was a mistake to file an incomplete petition. That is why the petition is dismissed. 

Also Read: Madhya Pradesh government to constitute ‘gau cabinet’ to protect cows in state

The Petitioner’s counsel also outlined the academic points of the petitioner, but the court did not agree.