No.14/3/2006-SR(S) Vol.-IVGovernment of India

Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & PensionsDepartment of Personnel & Training

3rdFloor, Lok Nayak Bhawan,Khan Market, New Delhi-110 003.

ToDate: 19.06.20141 9 JUN 2014

The Principal SecretaryDepartment of General AdministrationGovernment of Madhya PradeshVallabh Shawan, BhopalMadhya Pradesh - 462 004.

The Principal Secretary,Department of General AdministrationGovernment of ChhattisgarhOKS Bhawan,Raipur,Chhattisgarh-492 001.

Subject: Minutes of the 24th meeting of the Advisory Committee, MadhyaPradesh held at 12:00 Noon on 13.05.2014 in Room No.315, VallabhBhawan, Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh under the Chairmanship ofMs. Archana Verma, Joint Secretary (AT&AlSR) - regarding.

******Sir,

I am directed to forward, herewith, a copy of the minutes of the 24th meeting ofthe Advisory Committee held under the Chairmanship of Ms. Archana Verma, JointSecretary (AT&AlSR) at 12:00 Noon on 13.05.2014 in Room No. 315, Third Floor,Mantralaya, Vallabh Bhawan, Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh for consideration of therepresentations of State Government employees in compliance with the directions givenby the Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh/Chhattisgarh and other representationsof employees under SC/ST category, spouse policy etc.

2. The orders for revision/rejection of!llpcation would be issued separately by theGovernment of India. _'_-'-"'~:-:-,~,j ~

r:;:::;:':', t :2;~\;~\';.\:'u 'It"'::':'}:~';!tr~~.~'i;::~:r~;dgi,L';"" ! YoUii;fu Ily,

Enel: as above. t0C~'P~\- tl r':' (A.K'r:a"1notra)

b\ ~ \...... . ..utit9 r Secretary to the Government of India~ ~-\1' /\58 ~ .J r!J 011-24651898:-. \. ----~- E-mail: malhotra.ak13@nic.in

Copy to:

The Principal Secretaries,1. % Water Resources, Government of MP, Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh.2. % Water Resources, Government of Chhattisgarh, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.3. % Farmers' Welfare & Agriculture Development, Govt. of MP, Bhopal, MP.4. % Agriculture, Govt. of Chhattisgarh, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.5. % Horticulture, Govt. of MP, Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh.6. % Horticulture, Govt. of Chhattisgarh, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

... 2/-

-2-7. % Public Health & Family Welfare, Govt. of MP, Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh.8. % Public Health & Family Welfare, Govt. of Chhattisgarh, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.9. % Ayush, Govt. of MP, Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh.10.% Ayush, Govt. of Chhattisgarh, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.11. % Public Works, Govt. of MP, Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh.12. % Public Works, Govt. of Chhattisgarh, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.13.% Home, Govt. of MP, Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh.14. % Home, Govt. of Chhattisgarh, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.15. % Animal Husbandry, Govt. of MP, Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh.16. % Animal Husbandry, Govt. of Chhattisgarh, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.17.% School Education, Govt. of MP, Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh.18. % School Education, Govt. of Chhattisgarh, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.19.% Technical Education, Govt. of MP, Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh.20. % Technical Education, Govt. of Chhattisgarh, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.21. % Fisheries, Govt. of MP, Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh.22. % Fisheries, Govt. of Chhattisgarh, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.23. % Social Welfare, Govt. of MP, Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh.24. % Social Welfare, Govt. of Chhattisgarh, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.25. % Housing & Environment, Govt. of MP, Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh.26. % Housing & Environment, Govt. of Chhattisgarh, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.27. % Public Health Engineering, Govt. of MP, Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh.28. % Public Health Engineering, Govt. of Chhattisgarh, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.29. % Commerce & Industry, Govt. of MP, Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh.30. % Commerce & Industry, Govt. of Chhattisgarh, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.31. % Women & Child Development, Govt. of MP, Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh.32. % Women & Child Development, Govt.of Chhattisgarh, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.33. % Employment & Training, Govt. of MP, Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh.34. % Employment & Training, Govt. of Chhattisgarh, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.35. % Rural Industries, Govt. of MP, Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh.36. % Rural Industries, Govt. of Chhattisgarh, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.37. % Education, Govt. of MP, Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh.38. % Education, Govt. of Chhattisgarh, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.39. % Panchayat & Rural Development, Govt. of MP, Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh.40. % Panchayat & Rural Development, Govt. of Chhattisgarh, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.41.010 Revenue, Govt. of MP, Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh.42. % Revenue, Govt. of Chhattisgarh, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.43. % Weight & Measurement, Govt. of MP, Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh.44.010 Weight & Measurement, Govt. of Chhattisgarh, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

Copy also for information to:

(i) PS to JS(AT&AlSR)(ii) PA to Oirector(SR) .z,

Under Secretary to the Government of India~ 011-24651898

E-mail: malhotra.ak13@nic.in

Minutes of the 24thMeeting of Advisory Committee, Madhya Pradesh held on13thMay, 2014 at 12:00 Noon in Room No. 315, Vallabh Bhawan, Bhopal under

the Chairmanship of Ms. Arehana Varma, JS (AT & A).

The 24th meeting of Advisory Committee was convened at Bhopal at 12:00Noon on 13.05.2014, under the Chairmanship of Ms. Archana Varma, Joint Secretary(AT & A), DOPT, Government of India to consider the representations received fromthe employees of Madhya Pradesh and Chhattisgarh either in compliance of thecourt's directions or received directly. The list of attendees is enclosed asAnnexure "A" to the minutes.

2. Shri K. Suresh, Principal Secretary, Department of General Administration,Government of M.P., Member Secretary, Advisory Committee, welcomed theChairperson and other members of the Committee and thereafter, with the permissionof the Chair, took up the agenda of the meeting for discussion. The Committeeconsidered 79 cases, in total. Details are given below:-

No. of total No. of cases No. of cases No. of cases No. of casescases recommended recommended recommended recommendedconsidered for acceptance for rejection to drop to defer

79 30 11 10 28

Recommendations of the Committee in each individual case are reflected in the lastcolumn of the following table/minutes:-

Sr. Name, Designation,No. Department & W.P.IWrit

Appeal No.

Recommendations of the Committee

In compliance of directions of the Hon'bleHigh Court of M.P. dated 13.03.2012, therepresentation of Shri Yadav was considered bythe Committee. The Administrative Departmentadmitted that Shri Yadav's juniors viz. ShriRakesh Kumar Jain, Shri Vijay Kumar, ShriSatyanarayan Srivastava, Shri Kailash NarayanRaghuvanshi, Shri S K Soni, Shri Sridhar Chokse,Shri Shyam La! Soni, Shri Prabhu La! Kumar andShri Pradeep Kumar Vaidya were given higherpay scale Rs. 8000-13500/-, under ACP scheme,with retrospective effect, i.e. effective before23.09.2000 but were allocated to M.P. in lowerpay scale of Rs. 6500-10500/-. The Committeeconsidered these facts and recommended

1 Shri Narendra SinghYadav,Sub-Engineer, WRD

(W.A. No. 358/11)

(){l

2

(WP No. 1772/13)

Shri Manoj KumarKalosiya, Sub-Engineer,WRD

(WP No. 15011/06)

3 Shri Suresh ChandraSub-Engineer,Sharma,

WRD

(WA No. 220/11)

4 Shri A. K. Gupta,Sub-Engineer, WRD

(W. P. No. 5729/06)

5 Shri Dev Prakash Panik,Sub-Engineer, WRD

revision of allocation of Shri Narendra SinghYadav, Sub-Engineer from Chhattisgarh toMadhya Pradesh on the ground that his juniorswere allocated to M.P.

This case was deferred in the last meeting forwant of confirmation whether Shri Kalosia is stillin service or has expired. The AdministrativeDepartment confirmed that Shri Kalosiya hadexpired on 19.08.2009. In the light of the abovefacts, the Committee recommended to drop thiscase from the agenda.

In compliance of directions of the Hon'bleHigh Court of M.P dated 13.03.2012, therepresentation of Shri Sharma was considered bythe Committee. The Administrative Departmentadmitted that Shri Suresh Chandra Sharmastood retired on 30.04.2014. Since Sharma wasworking under the Government of M.P. till hisretirement and was not relieved for the State ofChhattisgarh in pursuance of Court's order,the Committee recommended revision ofallocation of Shri Suresh Chandra Sharma,Sub-Engineer from Chhattisgarh to MadhyaPradesh as he stood retired on 30.04.2014serving under the Government of M.P. inaccordance with clarifications dated 11.08.2008which warrants allocation of dead/retiredemployee in that successor State, which theywere serving last at the time ofdeath/retirement.

In compliance of directions of the Hon'bleHigh Court of M.P. dated 15.11.2011, therepresentation of Shri Gupta was considered bythe Committee. The Administrative Departmentadmitted that Shri Gupta's mother is sufferingfrom paralysis. The Committee considered therepresentation sympathetically and recommendedrevision of allocation of Shri A. K. Gupta,Sub-Engineer from Chhattisgarh to MadhyaPradesh under medical hardships category onthe ground that his mother is suffering fromserious disability.

In compliance of directions of the Hon'bleHigh Court of Chhattisgarh dated 26.06.2013, therepresentation of Shri Panik was considered by theCommittee. The Administrative Departmentconfirmed that Shri Panik belongs to SC category,is domicile of Chhattisgarh and had also opted forChhattisgarh. In the light of the above facts, theCommittee recommended revision of allocation

6

7

8

Shri Pramod Singh Minj,Sub-Engineer, WRD

(WP No. 1773/13)

Shri Om Prakash Jain,Assistant Engineer, WRD

(W P No. 3072/05)

Shri H. K. Srivatri,Manchitrakar, WRD

(Representation)

of Shri Dev Prakash Panik, Sub-Engineer fromM.P. to Chhattisgarh under revised policydated 24.06.2010 for allocation of SC/STemployees as he belongs to SC category and isdomicile/optee of Chhattisgarh.

In compliance of directions of the Hon'bleHigh Court of Chhattisgarh dated 24.06.2013, therepresentation of Shri Minj was considered by the.The Administrative Department confirmed thatShri Minj belongs to ST category, is a domicile ofChhattisgarh and had also opted for Chhattisgarh.In the light of the above facts, the Committeerecommended revision of allocation of ShriPramod Singh Minj, Sub-Engineer from M.P.to Chhattisgarh under revised policy dated24.06.2010 for allocation of SC/ST employees ashe belongs to ST category and is domicile/opteeof Chhattisgarh.

In compliance of directions of the Hon'bleHigh Court of M.P dated 19.06.2013, therepresentation of Shri Om Prakash Jain wasconsidered by the Committee. The AdministrativeDepartment admitted that wife of Shri OmPrakash Jain viz. Smt. Sunita Jain is working asLower Division Teacher in Govt. Girls PadmaSchool, Gwalior, M.P. since 08.08.1997. In thelight of the above facts, the Committeerecommended revision of allocation of Shri OmPrakash Jain, Assistant Engineer fromChhattisgarh to M.P. under spouse policy as

his wife is working with the Government ofM.P.

The Committee considered the representationof Shri Srivatri for revision of his allocation fromM.P. to Chhattisgarh under medical hardshipscategory. The Administrative Departmentinformed that Shri Srivatri was allocated toChhattisgarh as per his option. Later on, heapplied for mutual transfer to M.P. with Shri K KKhare. After acceptance of his request, he wastransferred to M.P. The Committee observed thatShri Srivatri had already been transferred to M.P.as per his request. In the light of the above facts,the Committee recommended rejection ofrepresentation of Shri Srivatri as he wasallocated to Chhattisgarh as per option andthereafter he himself got mutual transfer toM.P.

9

10

11

Shri Arun Kumar Jain,Sub-Engineer, WRD

(W P No. 2001113)

Ramesh KumarShriKosta,Sub-Engineer, WRD(Representation)

Shri Vijay Kant Kumawat,Tracer, WRD

(Representation)

In compliance of directions of the Hon'bleHigh Court of Chhattisgarh dated 19.07.2013, therepresentation of Shri Jain was considered by theCommittee. The Administrative Departmentadmitted that Shri Jain IS a domicile ofChhattisgarh and had also opted for Chhattisgarh.Govt. of M.P. as well as Govt. of Chhattisgarh hasgiven no objection for revision of his allocationfrom M.P. to Chhattisgarh. In the light of theabove facts, the Committee recommendedrevision of allocation of Shri Arun Kumar Jain,Sub-Engineer from M.P. to Chhattisgarh.

The Committee considered the representationof Shri Kosta for his retention in Chhattisgarh.The Administrative Department of Shri Kostainformed that he was allocated to Chhattisgarhagainst his option for M.P. under A-4 category onjuniority basis. Shri Kosta IS a physicallyhandicapped employee. Therefore, he had appliedfor revision of his allocation from Chhattisgarh toM.P. His request was accepted by the CentralGovernment and accordingly, his allocation wasrevised from Chhattisgarh to M.P. vide orderdated 27.06.2005. However, he has not yet beenrelieved for M.P. Now, he has been promoted tothe post of Assistant Engineer in Chhattisgarh andwants to remain in Chhattisgarh. The Govt. ofM.P. as well as Govt. of Chhattisgarh has given noobjection for his retention In the State ofChhattisgarh. In the light of the above facts, theCommittee considered his representation andrecommended cancellation of revision ofallocation of Shri Ramesh Kumar Kosta, Sub-Engineer (Sr. No.5 of order No. 14/3812005-SR(S) dated 27.06.2005) and to adhere earlierallocation of Shri Kosta to the State ofChhattisgarh.

The Administrative Department confirmed thatShri Kumawat belongs to SC category, is domicileof M.P. and had also opted for M.P. In the light ofthe above facts, the Committee considered hisrepresentation and recommended revision ofallocation of Shri Vijay Kant Kumawat, Tracerfrom Chhattisgarh to M.P. under revised policydated 24.06.2010 for allocation of SC/STemployees as he belongs to SC category and isdomicile/optee of M.P.

4~

12 Shri Rewa Ram Yadav,SADO, Farmers' Welfare& AgriculturalDevelopment

In compliance of directions of the Hon'bleHigh Court of M.P. dated 15.11.11, therepresentation of Shri Yadav was considered bythe Committee. Shri Yadav raised the ground ofallocation of 13junior SADOs to the State of M.P.The Administrative Department having re-examined the representation, informed that 10junior SADOs were allocated to Madhya Pradeshas they were going to retire in next two years fromthe appointed day. Remaining three wereallocated to M.P. due to various reasons.Administrative Department further clarified thatinitially, the name of Shri B. L. Thakur (Sr. Rank1848) was not included in the TFAL. While hisname was included in FAL after amendment in theseniority rank. He was wrongly allocated to M.P.on the basis of incorrect seniority rank. ShriSuresh Babu Sharma was allocated to M.P. beingsenior in the pay scale of Rs. 5000-8000 on thebasis of wrong seniority rank due to data feedingerror. His seniority rank was erroneously shown188 in place of 1850. Name of Shri R.C.Chandrakar (Sr. Rank 1965) was included in theTFAL of RAEOs receiving the pay scale of Rs.4500-7000 showing incorrect seniority rank 2138.Being semor in the cadre of RAEOs ShriChandrakar was allocated to M.P. It was observedthat all these facts were brought to the notice ofthe then State Advisory Committee during thefinal allocation of employees but the Committeedecided that the allocation of above said threejuniors need not be changed.

The Committee after perusing the factsexplained by the Administrative Department aswell as Department of General Administration,Govt. of M.P. and Chhattisgarh, viewed thatdecision of the then State Advisory Committee,not to change allocation of Shri B. L. Thakur,Shri Suresh Babu Sharma and Shri R.C.Chandrakar was not in order. Therefore, theCommittee recommended correction of theallocation of above said three SADOs viz. S/Sh.B. L. Thakur, Suresh Babu Sharma and R.C.Chandrakar by revising their allocation fromM.P. to Chhattisgarh. After revising allocationof above said three SADOs to Chhattisgarh, theground raised by Shri Yadav would no longersustain. In the light of the above facts, theCommittee recommended rejection ofrepresentation of Shri Rewa Ram Yadav,SADO for revision of allocation from

(W P No. 1508/06)

~5

13 Shri Kirti Kumar Jain,RAEO, Farmers' Welfare& AgriculturalDevelopment

(WP No. 1509/06)

14 Shri Ram Lal SinghKushwaha, SADO,Farmers' Welfare &Agricultural Dev

(W P No. 1165/06)

Chhattisgarh to M.P. After issue of order forrevision of allocation of S/Sh. B. L. Thakur,Suresh Babu Sharma and R.C. Chandrakar, allSADOs from M.P. to Chhattisgarh, a detailedspeaking order shall be issued.

In compliance of directions of the Hon'bleHigh Court of M.P. dated 15.11.11, therepresentation of Shri Jain was considered by theCommittee. The Administrative Departmentadmitted that 16junior RAEOs were given higherpay scale of Rs.4500-7000, under ACP scheme,with retrospective effect, i.e. effective before23.09.2000 but were allocated to M.P. in lowerpay scale of Rs. 4000-6000. Shri Jain's juniorsviz. Shri Sanjay Singh Tomar (Sr. Rank 9554) andShri V. Srivastava (Sr. Rank 9656) were alsoallocated to M.P. in the Pay Scale of Rs. 4500-7000. In the light of the above facts, theCommittee recommended revision of allocationof Shri Kirti Kumar Jain, RAEO fromChhattisgarh to Madhya Pradesh on theground that his juniors were allocated to M.P.

In compliance of directions of the Hon'ble HighCourt of M.P. dated 03.10.2007, therepresentation of Shri Kushwaha was consideredby the Committee. Shri Kuashwaha raised theground of allocation of 15 junior SADOs to theState of M.P. The Administrative Departmenthaving examined the representation, informed that12 junior SADOs were allocated to MadhyaPradesh as they were going to retire in next twoyears from the appointed day. Remaining threewere allocated to M.P. due to various reasons.Administrative Department further clarified thatinitially, the name of Shri B. L. Thakur (Sr. Rank1848) was not included in the TFAL. While hisname was included in FAL after amendment in theseniority rank. He was wrongly allocated to M.P.on the basis of incorrect seniority rank. ShriSuresh Babu Sharma was allocated to M.P. beingsenior in the pay scale of Rs. 5000-8000 on thebasis of wrong seniority rank due to data feedingerror. His seniority rank was erroneously shown188 in place of 1850. Name of Shri R.C.Chandrakar (Sr. Rank 1965) was included in theTFAL of RAEOs receiving the pay scale of Rs.4500-7000 showing incorrect Sr. rank 2138. Beingsenior in the cadre of RAEOs, Shri Chandrakarwas allocated to M.P. It was observed that allthese facts were brought to the notice of the then

15 Shri L. S. Rajput, RAEO,Farmers' WeHare &Agricultural Development

(W P No. 2708/06)

State Advisory Committee during the finalallocation of employees but the Committeedecided that the allocation of above said threejuniors need not be changed.

The Committee after perusing the factsexplained by the Administrative Department aswell as Department of General Administration,Govt. of M.P. and Chhattisgarh, viewed thatdecision of the then State Advisory Committee,not to change allocation of Shri H. L. Thakur,Shri Suresh Babu Sharma and Shri R.C.Chandrakar was not in order. Therefore, theCommittee recommended correction of theallocation of above said three SADOs viz. S/Sh.H. L. Thakur, Suresh Babu Sharma and R.C.Chandrakar by revising their allocation fromM.P. to Chhattisgarh. After revising allocationof above said three SADOs to Chhattisgarh, theground raised by Shri Kushwaha would nolonger sustain. In the light of the above facts,the Committee recommended rejection ofrepresentation of Shri Ram Lal SinghKushwaha, SADO for revision of allocationfrom Chhattisgarh to M.P. After issue of orderfor revision of allocation of S/Sh. H. L. Thakur,Suresh Babu Sharma and R.C. Chandrakar, allSADOs from M.P. to Chhattisgarh, a detailedspeaking order shall be issued.

The Administrative Department informed thatWrit Appeal No. 18/2013 was filed in the Hon'bleHigh Court of M.P. challenging the order dated14.12.2011 passed by the Hon'ble High Court ofM.P. in W.P. No. 2708/2006. The said appeal hasbeen disposed of on 06.03.2014 by the Hon'bleHigh Court with a direction to reconsider the oldrepresentation of the petitioner. In the light of theabove facts, the Committee recommended thatold representation of Shri Rajput bere-examined by the Administrative Departmentand detailed/specific comments on the pointsraised by the petitioner may be furnished to theCentral Government. The Committeerecommended to place this case alongwithcomments in its next meeting.

7

The Committee considered the representationsof Shri Jadhav, Shri Kumhar and Shri Uike. TheAdministrative Departments in Government ofChhattisgarh confirmed that they belong to SCcategory, are domicile of M.P. and had opted forM.P. However, Government of M.P. sought~--~------------------~further time to verify/check their service records.The Committee recommended revision of theirallocation to M.P. subject to verification of thefacts by Government of M.P. within two weeks.The Committee also desired that copies of theirrepresentations be sent to their Administrativer---+----------- __------~18 Shri Ganga Singh Uike, Departments. However, after a lapse of one

RHEO, Horticulture month, confirmation/verification has not been(Representation) received from Government of M.P. despite

reminder As such these cases may be treated asdeferred.

16

17

Shri Watan Jadhav,RAEO, Farmers' Welfare& AgriculturalDevelopment(Representation)

Shri Sumran Lal Kumhar,RAEO, Farmers' Welfare& AgriculturalDevelopment(Representation)

19 Shri SarvanChourasia,Horticulture(Representation)

KumarRHEO,

The Administrative Department confirmed thatShri Chourasia belongs to SC category and isdomicile of M.P. and had opted for M.P. In thelight of the above facts, the Committeeconsidered his representation andrecommended revision of allocation of ShriSarvan Kumar Chourasia, RHEO fromChhattisgarh to M.P. under revised policydated 24.06.2010 for allocation of SC/STemployees as he belongs to SC category and isdomicile/opteeof M.P.

20 Shri Bhanwar Lal Rawal,Asstt. Grade II,Horticulture(Representation)

The Administrative Department of Shri Rawalinformed that he is a non-State cadre employee.Non-State cadre employees stood allocated to theState where they were working as on theappointed day i.e. 01.11.2000. The Committeenoted that no separate orders for allocation ofsuch non-State cadre employees were issued.Therefore, consideration of allocation of non-State cadre employee does not fall within thepurview of State Advisory Committee. Assuch, the Committee did not consider therepresentation. However, the Committee,taking a sympathetic view, opined that hisrequest may be considered by both the StateGovernments of M.P. and Chhattisgarh withmutual consent.

21 Shri R.S.RHEO,Horticulture

Rampure, Shri Rampure submitted a representation forrevision of allocation from Chhattisgarh to M.P.under revised policy for allocation of SC/STemployees. The Administrative Department inGovt. of Chhattisgarh has confirmed that Shri(Representation)

22

23

24

Shri Ashok Kumar Kannoji,Asstt. Grade-III,Horticulture(Representation)

Dr. Pradeep KumarAgrawal,Medical Officer,Public Health and FamilyWelfare

(OA No. 4649/02)(WP No. 21564/03)

Smt. Neema Raghuvanshi,Mahila SwasthyaKaryakarta,Public Health and FamilyWelfare

Rampure has withdrawn his request forrevision of allocation from Chhattisgarh to M.P.In the light of the above facts, the Committeerecommended to drop this case from agenda.

(WP No.771111)

The Administrative Department ofShri Kannoji informed that he is a non-State cadreemployee. Non-State cadre employees stoodallocated to the State where they were working ason the appointed day i.e. 01.11.2000. TheCommittee noted that no separate orders forallocation of such non-State cadre employeeswere issued. Therefore, consideration ofallocation of non-State cadre employee does notfall within the purview of State AdvisoryCommittee. As such the Committee did notconsider the representation. However, theCommittee, taking a sympathetic view, opinedthat his request may be considered by both theState Governments of M.P. and Chhattisgarhwith mutual consent.

In compliance of directions of the Hon'bleHigh Court of M.P. dated 15.09.2003, therepresentation of Dr. Agrawal was considered bythe Committee. Dr. Agrawal has requested forrevision of allocation from Chhattisgarh to M.P.stating that he is a domicile of M.P. and had alsoopted for M.P. The Administrative Departmentinformed that his home district was mentioned asDurg, Chhattisgarh in his service book. No suchapplication requesting for change of home districtis available in his service book. They have alsoconfirmed that any such representation for changeof home district had never been received at anypoint of time before State allocation from Dr.Agrawal. He was allocated to Chhattisgarh underA-3 category (Home district) as per existingguidelines of allocation. In the light of the abovefacts, the Committee recommended rejection ofrepresentation of Dr. Pradeep Kumar Agrawal,Medical Officer for revision of allocation fromChhattisgarh to M.P. A detailed speaking ordershall be issued.

In compliance of directions of the Hon'bleHigh Court of Chhattisgarh dated 14.02.2013,thiscase was placed before the Committee. TheAdministrative Department of Smt. NeemaRaghuvanshi informed that she is a non-Statecadre employee. Non-State cadre employees stoodallocated to the State where they were working as

~9

25

26

Dr. Ramesh Kumar Neema,Medical Specialist,Public Health and FamilyWelfare

(WP No. 1836/07)

Shri Ram Kumar Jatav,Health Supervisor, PublicHealth and Family Welfare(Representation)

f

on the appointed day i.e. 01.11.2000. TheCommittee noted that no separate orders forallocation of such non-State cadre employeeswere issued. Therefore, consideration ofallocation of non-State cadre employee does notfall within the purview of State AdvisoryCommittee. As such the Committee did notconsider the representation. However, takingnote of the views of Department of GeneralAdministration, M.P., the Committee opinedthat her request for mutual transfer may beconsidered by both the State Governments ofM.P. and Chhattisgarh with mutual consent.

In compliance of directions of the Hon'bleHigh Court of M.P. dated 30.11.2011, therepresentation of Dr. Neema was considered bythe Committee. Dr. Neema contended that 65Medical Specialists (whose name have been givenby Dr. Neema), junior to him, were receiving thepay scale of Rs. 12000-16500 but had been shownin the scale of Rs.I0000-15200. He furthercontended that Dr. Ram Chandra Sharma and 23other Specialist Doctors (whose names have beengiven by Dr. Neema), junior to him, werereceiving the pay scale ofRs. 12000-16500/-wereallocated to M.P. The Administrative Departmentdid not furnish specific/detailed comments oncontentions of Dr. Neema. However,Administrative Department sought time to furtherexamine the matter. In the light of the abovefacts, the Committee recommended that theposition be verified and checked within onemonth whether juniors have been given ACPwith retrospective effect after the cut-off datei.e. 23.09.2000 and reported to the CentralGovernment with detailed/specific commentson allocation of his juniors to M.P. Therefore,the Committee deferred this case for its nextmeeting.

The Central Government is in receipt of arepresentation from Shri Jatav for revision ofallocation from Chhattisgarh to M.P. under SC/STpolicy. However, his Administrative Departmentinformed that no representation from Shri Jatavfor revision of allocation from Chhattisgarh toM.P. has been received so far. The Committeerecommended revision of his allocation to M.P.subject to verification of the facts byGovernment of M.P. within two weeks. TheCommittee also desired that a copy of therepresentation be sent to his Administrative

lQ{

In compliance of directions of the Hon'bleHigh Court of M.P. dated 15.11.2011 and28.02.2012, the representations of the petitioners

I----t----------_ were considered by the Committee. They have28 Dr. Kunwar Pal Singh, contended that some AMOs junior to them were

AMO, AYUSH, allocated to M.P. in lower pay scale. They havef--_+-->--(WP_N_o_._67_7_4_/0_6.L.-}__ ---1 further contended that the gradation list of AMOs

Dr. Rajesh Joshi, AMO, is defective. However, Department of AYUSHAYUSH , initially, refuted their claims and averred that it(WP No. 3065/06) has yet to check/verify their claims in detail for

which it sought further time. Since all these casesr--+------------------~ are repeatedly being deferred for last threemeetings, the Committee took serious note of itand recommended that the position be verifiedand checked within one month whether juniorshave been given ACP with retrospective effectafter the cut-off date Le, 23.09.2000 andreported to the Central Government withpoint-wise/specific comments on allocation ofhis juniors to M.P. Therefore, the Committeedeferred these cases for its next meeting.

27

29

30

31

Dr. Kailash ChandraMahajan, AMO, AYUSH,(WP No.6775/06)

Dr. VishambharChaturvedi,AYUSH,(WP No. 3905/07)

DayalAMO,

Shri Bijendra KumarSharma, Sub-Engineer,Public Works

WP No. 1496/05

Department. However, after a lapse of onemonth, confirmation/verification has not beenreceived from Government of M.P. despitereminder As such this case may be treated asdeferred.

In compliance of directions of the Hon'bleHigh Court of M.P. dated 19.06.2013, therepresentation of Shri Sharma was considered bythe Committee. Shri Sharma has contended thathis junior viz. Shri Manoj Jain, Sub-Engineerwasallocated to M.P. He has further contended that hiswife Smt. Vijaylata Sharma is working as ShikshaKarmi Varg. I in Government Higher SecondarySchool, Distt. Shivpuri, M.P. However,Department of Public Works refuted his claim andsubmitted that his wife is not a governmentemployee, she is samvida Karmi (contractualemployee). The Administrative Departmentsought further time to check and verify allocationof his junior Shri Manoj Jain to M.P. by givingACP with retrospective effect after the cut-offdate i.e. 23.09.2000. In the light of above facts,the Committee recommended that the positionbe verified and checked within one month andreported to the Central Government withpoint-wise/specific comments on allocation ofhis junior. Therefore, the Committee deferredthe case for its next meeting.

~~~----~~~- ~~------- -~~~--~-

32

33

34

Shri Ashok Kumar Navre,Asstt. Grade-III,Public Works

(Representation)

Shri Sharad KumarCholkar, Asstt. Engineer,Public Works

(Representation)

Shri Mahesh Pratap Singh,Sahayak ManchitrakarPublic Works

(Representation)

The Administrative Department of Shri Navreinformed that he is a non-State cadre employee.Non-State cadre employees stood allocated to theState where they were working as on theappointed day i.e. 01.11.2000. The Committeenoted that no separate orders for allocation of suchnon-State cadre employees were issued.Therefore, consideration of allocation of non-State cadre employee does not fall within thepurview of Advisory Committee. As such, theCommittee did not consider the representationof Shri Navre. However, the Committee, takinga sympathetic view, opined that his requestmay be considered by both the StateGovernments of M.P. and Chhattisgarh withmutual consent.

The Central Government is in receipt of arepresentation from Shri Cholkar for revision ofallocation from Chhattisgarh to M.P. under SC/STpolicy. However, his Administrative Departmentinformed that no representation from Shri Cholkarfor revision of allocation from Chhattisgarh toM.P. has been received so far. However,Government of M.P. sought further time toverify/check his service records. In the light ofabove facts, the Committee recommendedrevision of his allocation to M.P. subject toverification of the facts by Government of M.P.within two weeks. The Committee also desiredthat a copy of the representation be sent to hisAdministrative Department. However, after alapse of one month, despite reminder,confirmation/verification has not been receivedso far from Government of M.P. Therefore,this case may be treated as deferred. •

The Administrative Department of Shri Singhinformed that he is a non-State cadre employee.Non-State cadre employees stood allocated to theState where they were working as on theappointed day i.e. 01.11.2000. The Committeenoted that no separate orders for allocation of suchnon-State cadre employee were issued. Therefore,consideration of allocation of non-State cadreemployee does not fall within the purview of theCommittee. Since his son is mentally disturbedand physically handicapped and his wife isworking in the State of M.P., in consultationwith the Department of GeneralAdministration, Govt. of M.P., the Committee,taking a sympathetic view, opined that hisrequest may be considered by both the State

Governments of M.P. and Chhattisgarh withmutual consent.

35 Shri Jageshwar PrasadJaishwal,Constable (Ministerial)Home(WP No. 9491/13)

In compliance of directions of the Hon'bleHigh Court of M.P dated 17.06.2013, therepresentation of Shri Jaiswal was considered bythe Committee. Shri Jaiswal has contended thathe was allocated to Chhattisgarh against option forM.P. He further contended that only thoseclass N employees 'were to be allocated toChhattisgarh who had given option for the same.It was observed that there were inherentinconsistencies in the comments earlier madeavailable by the Administrative Department.While the petitioner seems to have been Constablein the year 1988, his TFALIFAL shows hisallocation to Chhattisgarh against the post ofPeon. The Administrative Department confirmedthat Shri Jaiswal was recruited as Constable(Ministerial) which is a class N post. As perO.M. dated 5.11.1967 issued by Department ofHome, M.P. the post Peon was deemed Constable(Ministerial). He was working against the post ofPeon, deemed Constable (M), at the time ofallocation. Therefore, he was allocated toChhattisgarh under A-3 (home district- Bastar)category as Peon. The Committee consideredthese facts and recommended revision ofallocation of Shri Jageshwar Prasad Jaiswal,Peon from Chhattisgarh to Madhya Pradeshunder revised policy dated 02.11.2007 forallocation of Class IV employee as per option.

36 Shri Bantalu Ram Bhagat,Platoon Commander,Home(Representation)

Shri Bhagat has contended that he is adomicile/optee of Chhattisgarh. Government ofChhattisgarh has confirmed that Shri Bhagat isdomicile/optee of Chhattisgarh. Govt. of M.P. aswell as Govt. of Chhattisgarh has given noobjection for revision of his allocation from M.P.to Chhattisgarh. However, Government of M.P.sought further time to verify and check the servicerecords. In the light of the above facts, theCommittee recommended revision of hisallocation to Chhattisgarh subject toverification of the facts by Government of M.P.within two weeks. The Committee also desiredthat a copy of the representation be sent to hisAdministrative Department. However, after alapse of one month, despite reminder,confirmation/verification has not been receivedso far from Government of M.P. Therefore,this case may be treated as deferred.

13

37

38

39

Jat, Shri Jat submitted a representation for revisionof allocation from Chhattisgarh to M.P. underrevised policy for SC/ST employees. TheAdministrative Department in Govt. ofChhattisgarh has informed that Shri Jat haswithdrawn his request for revision of allocationdue to his promotion to the post of ASI inChhattisgarh. In the light of the above facts,the Committee recommended to drop this casefrom agenda.

Prasad The Committee considered the representationof Shri Markam in the light of comments receivedfrom his Administrative Department. TheAdministrative Department having examined hisrepresentation admitted that he belong to SC/STcategory, is domicile of M.P. and had also optedfor M.P. However, Government of M.P. soughtfurther time to verify and check the servicerecords. In the light of above facts, theCommittee recommended revision of hisallocation to M.P. subject to verification of thefacts by Government of M.P. within two weeks.The Committee also desired that a copy of therepresentation be sent to his AdministrativeDepartment. However, after a lapse of onemonth, despite reminder, confirmation!verification has not been received so far fromGovernment of M.P. Therefore, this case maybe treated as deferred.

Shri Dubey Singh Marko,Constable (CID),Home(Representation)

Shri RakeshConstable,Home(Representation)

Shri ThakurMarkam, ASI,Home(Representation)

The Administrative Department of Shri Markoconfirmed that he belongs to ST category, isdomicile of M.P. and had also opted for M.P. Inthe light of the above facts, the Committeeconsidered his representation andrecommended revision of allocation of ShriDubey Singh Marko, Constable fromChhattisgarh to M.P. under revised policydated 24.06.2010 of allocation of SC/STemployees as he belongs to ST category and isdomicile/optee of M.P.

The Administrative Department confirmed thatChoudhary, Shri Bahadur Singh Choudhary and Shri RatanConstable (Radio), Home Lal belong to SC/ST category, are domicile of

f--_+=(R4e;;.&~p;..:.lr..;;..es;;....;e-,-,n-,-,ta.;;...;,ti-,-,·0-,-,nL--)-l M.P. and had opted for M.P. In the light of theShri Ratan Lal, Constable above facts, the Committee considered their(Radio), Home representations and recommended revision of(Representation) their allocation from Chhattisgarh to M.P.

under revised policy dated 24.06.2010 for

40

41

Shri Bahadur Singh

1~

The Administrative Department ofShri Survanwanshi and Shri Ahirwar confirmedthat they belong to 8C/8T category, are domicileof M.P. and had opted for M.P. In the light of theabove facts, the Committee considerd theirrepresentations and recommended revision of

I---+--------------i their alloeatien from Chhattisgarh to M.P.44 Shri Ganpat Ahirwar, under revised policy dated 24.06.2010 for

Constable (Radio), Home anocation of SC/ST employees as they belong to(Representation) SC/ST category and are domicile/optee of M.P.

42

43

Shri UmeshConsable,(Representation)

Varma,Home

aDocation of SC/ST employees as they belong toSC/ST category and are domicile/optee of M.P.

The Central Government is in receipt of arepresentation from Shri Varma for revision ofallocation from Chhattisgarh to M.P. under 8C/8Tpolicy. However, the Administrative Departmentof Shri Varma informed that no representationfrom Shri Varma for revision of allocation fromChhattisgarh to M.P. has been received so far. Inthe light of the above facts, the Committeerecommended revision of his allocation to M.P.subject to verification of the facts byGovernment of M.P. within two weeks. TheCommittee also desired that a copy of therepresentation be sent to his AdministrativeDepartment. However, after a lapse of onemonth, despite reminder, confirmation!verification has not been received so far fromGovernment of M.P. Therefore, this case maybe treated as deferred.

ShriSurvanwanshi,(Radio),(Representation)

SitaramConstable

Home

45 Shri Dharat Notiya,Sub-Inspector,Home

(Representation)

The Central Government is in receipt of arepresentation from Shri Notia for revision ofallocation from Chhattisgarh to M.P. under 8C/8Tpolicy. However, the Administrative Departmentof Shri Notia informed that no representation fromShri Notia for revision of allocation fromChhattisgarh to M.P. has been received so far. Inthe light of above facts, the Committeerecommended revision of his allocation to M.P.subject to verification of the facts byGovernment of M.P. within two weeks. TheCommittee also desired that a copy of therepresentation be sent to his AdministrativeDepartment. However, after a lapse of onemonth, despite reminder, confirmation!verification has not been received so far fromGovernment of M.P. Therefore, this case maybe treated as deferred.

15

46 Shri DulichandConstable,Home

Maravi, The Administrative Department of Shri Maraviconfirmed that he belongs to SC/ST category, isdomicile of M.P. and had also opted for M.P. Inthe light of the above facts, the Committeeconsidered his representation andrecommended revision of allocation of ShriDulichand Maravi, Constable fromChhattisgarh to M.P. under revised policydated 24.06.2010 for allocation of SC/STemployees as he belongs to SC/ST category andis domicile/optee of M.P.

47

48

(Representation)

Shri GirishDhurve,Inspector,(Representation)

KumarSub-

Home

The Central Government is in receipt of arepresentation from Shri Dhurve for revision ofallocation from Chhattisgarh to M.P. under SC/STpolicy. However, the Administrative Departmentof Shri Dhurve informed that no representationfrom Shri Dhurve for revision of allocation fromChhattisgarh to M.P. has been received so far. Inthe light of above facts, the Committeerecommended revision of his allocation to M.P.subject to verification of the facts byGovernment of M.P. within two weeks. TheCommittee also desired that a copy of therepresentation be sent to his AdministrativeDepartment. However, after a lapse of onemonth, despite reminder, confirmationlverification has not been received so far fromGovernment of M.P. Therefore, this case maybe treated as deferred.

The Administrative Department of Shri Sayreinformed that he is a non-state cadre employee.He belongs to SC category, is domicile ofNagpur,Maharashtra and had opted for Chhattisgarh.However, the Committee observed that he is astate cadre employee and was allocated toChhattisgarh as per his option (A-2 category). Inthe light of above facts, the Committeeconsidered his representation andrecommended rejection of representation ofShri R.K. Sayre. Assistant Grade-II as he wasallocated to Chhattisgarh as per his option.

Shri R.K. Sayre,Assistant Grade-IIAnimal Husbandry(Veterinary)

(Representation)

49 Shri Anil Kumar Sonare,Asstt. Grade-IIIIStenoTypist, Animal Husbandry(Veterinary)

(Representation)

The Administrative Department of Shri Sonareconfirmed that he belongs to SC category, isdomicile of Chhindwada, M.P. and had opted forChhattisgarh. The Committee considered hisrepresentation and observed that Shri Sonare wasallocated to Chhattisgarh as per his option (A-2category). However, the Committee noted thatissue of allocation of SC/ST employees to theirdomicile state is under consideration, in

1~

50 Shri Ashok Kumar Kurve,Asstt. Veterinary FieldOfficer,Animal Husbandry(Veterinary)

(Representation)

consultation with the Department of LegalAtTain, Government of India as advised byReservation Division of Department ofPersonnel and Training, Government of India.In the light of the above facts, the Committeedeferred the case for its next meeting.

Shri Kurve has contended that he belongs toST category and is domicile of M.P. His wife Smt.Anju is working as Assistant Teacher under StateGovernment of M.P. The AdministrativeDepartment of Shri Kurve confirmed that hebelongs to ST category, is domicile of Balaghat,M.P. and had opted for Chhattisgarh. TheCommittee observed that Shri Kurve wasallocated to Chhattisgarh as per his option (A-2category). However, the Committee noted thatissue of allocation of SC/ST employees to theirdomicile state is under consideration, inconsultation with the Department of LegalAtTain, Government of India as advised byReservation Division of Department ofPersonnel and Training, Goverment of India.In the light of the above facts, the Committeedeferred the case for its next meeting.

Shri Anil Kumar Goyal, The Administrative Department of Shri GoyalAsstt. Grade-III, j and Shri Garg confirmed that they belong to SCCommerce and Industry category, are domicile of M.P. and had also opted(Representation) for M.P. In the light of the above facts, the

1----/------------1 Committee considered their representations52 Shri Kedar Singh Garg, and recommended revision of their allocation

Asstt. Director, from Chhattisgarh to M.P. under revised policyCommerce and Industry dated 24.06.2010 for allocation of SC/ST

employees as they. belong to SC category andare domicile/optee of M.P.

51

(Representation)

53 Shri Shivram Masram,Bhritya, Commerce andIndustry,

(Representation)

The Administrative Department ofShri Masram confirmed that he belongs to STcategory, is domicile of M.P. and had also optedfor M.P. They have also confirmed that he is aclass-IV employee.1n the light of the above facts,the Committee considered his representationand recommended revision of allocation of ShriShivram Masram, Bhritya from Chhattisgarhto M.P. under revised policy dated 02.11.2007for allocation of Class-IV employee to the optedState.

17

54

55

Shri Vijay Pal SinghBhadoriya, Sub-Engineer,Public Health Engineering

(WP No. 2672/05)

Shri Rakesh KumarSharma, Sub-Engineer,Public Health Engineering,

(WA No. 224/12)

In compliance of directions of the Hon'bleHigh Court of M.P. dated 14.03.2013, therepresentation of Shri Bhadoria was considered bythe Committee. Shri Bhadoriya raised the groundof allocation of his juniors namely Shri B.P.Dubey, Shri P.K. Baijal, Shri D.K. Gupta, ShriM.K. Jain, Shri G.P. Dixit, Shri D.R. Choure, ShriR.K. Ahirwar, Shri I.M. Khan, Shri V.P. Malviya,Shri P.K. Pyasi, Shri P.K. Khare, Shri S.K.Chandryan, Shri K.C. Maheshwari, Shri S.A.Qureshi, Shri Ramji Tripathi, Shri V.K. Sharma,Shri R.K. Shrivastava, Shri S.K. Jasuja, Shri R.K.Pathak, Shri Y.K. Agrawal and Shri K.P.Kushwaha were allocated to the State of MadhyaPradesh. Shri Bhadoriya has further contendedthat his wife Smt. Anju Bhadoriya is working asTeacher in a Raman Girls Higher SecondarySchool, Bind, M.P. The AdministrativeDepartment informed that all the juniors named byShri Bhadoriya were allocated to M.P. undereither mutual transfer policy, revision of seniorityor in reserved category. They were not allocatedto M.P. under A-4 i.e. junior most category.Moreover, his wife is not a Govt. employee. Inthe light of the above facts, the Committeerecommended rejection of representation ofShri Vijay Pal Singh Bhadoria, Sub-Engineerfor revision of allocation from Chhattisgarh toM.P. A detailed speaking order shall be issued.

In compliance of directions of the Hon'bleHigh Court of M.P. dated 27.04.2012, therepresentation of Shri Sharma was considered bythe Committee. Shri Sharma raised the ground ofallocation of his juniors namely Shri GhanshyamAgarwal, Shri Satish Prakash Sahu, Shri Kailash,Shri Krishna Gopal Maheshwari, Shri P K Saxena,Shri S A Qureshi, Shri Ram ji Tripathi, Shri V.K.Sharma, Shri R.K. Shrivastava, Shri R.K. Pathak,Shri Y.K. Agrawal and Shri K.P. Kushwaha wereallocated to the State of Madhya Pradesh. TheAdministrative Department informed that all thejuniors named by Shri Sharma were allocated toM.P. under either mutual transfer policy, revisionof seniority or in reserved category. They werenot allocated to M.P. under A-4 i.e. junior mostcategory. In the light of the above facts, theCommittee recommended rejection ofrepresentation of Shri Rakesh Kumar Sharma,Sub-Engineer for revision of allocation fromChhattisgarh to M.P. A detailed speakingorder shall be issued.

1~

56 Shri Dinesh Chandra Ojha,Sub-Engineer,Public Health Engineering

(WA No. 367/11)

In compliance of directions of the Hon 'bleHigh Court of M.P. dated 18.10.2013, therepresentation of Shri Ojha was considered by theCommittee. Shri Ojha raised the ground ofallocation of his juniors namely Shri R.K.Ahirwar, Shri I.M. Khan, Shri K.C. Maheshwari,Shri Ghanshyam Aggarwal, Shri S.A. Qureshi,Shri Ramji Tripathi, Shri V.K. Sharma, Shri P KSaxena, Shri Krishna Gopal Maheshwari, ShriSatish Prakash Sahu, Shri Kailash ChandraPashari Shri R.K. Shrivastava, Shri Y.K. Agrawaland Shri K.P. Kushwaha were allocated to theState of Madhya Pradesh. The AdministrativeDepartment informed that all the juniors named byShri Ojha were allocated to M.P. under eithermutual transfer policy, revision of seniority or inreserved category. They were not allocated toM.P. under A-4 i.e. junior most category. In thelight of the above facts, the Committeerecommended rejection of representation ofShri Dinesh Chandra Ojha, Sub-Engineer forrevision of allocation from Chhattisgarh toM.P. A detailed speaking order shall be issued.

57 Shri Pramod KumarChaturvedi,Sub-Engineer,Public Health Engineering

(W P No. 3406/11)

In compliance of directions of the Hon 'bleHigh Court of M.P. dated 28.02.2011, therepresentation of Shri Chaturvedi was consideredby the Committee. Shri Chaturvedi raised theground of allocation of his juniors namely ShriManoj Kumar Bhatnagar, ShriUtam KumarMadankar to M.P. He further contended that ShriYogesh Kumar Khare, Shri Jagdish Kumar Joshiand others have been left from allocation toChhattisgarh and retained in State of M.P. TheAdministrative Department informed that ShriManoj Kumar Bhatnagar and Shri Madankar arejunior to Shri Chaturvedi. They were allocated toM.P. on the basis of wrong seniority rank.Seniority rank of Shri Bhatnagar was amended in2011. Consequent upon amendment in seniority,he was placed below Shri Chaturvedi. However,Administrative Department confirmed that ShriBhatnagar died in the year 2009. As regards ShriMadankar, they have clarified that seniority rankof Shri Madankar has also been re-determined.He has been placed at seniority rank No. 516below Shri Chaturvedi (seniority rank No. 510).Shri Yogesh Kumar Khare was allocated toChhattisgarh as per option and Shri J C Joshi wasallocated to M.P. under mutual transfer policy.

The Committee after perusing the factsexplained by the Administrative Department as

()q 19

58 Shri Dinesh Babu Mishra,Sub-Engineer,Public Health Engineering

(W P No. 2683/05)

well as Departments of General Administrationof Govt. of M.P. and Chhattisgarh, viewed thatallocation of Shri Bhatnagar andShri Madankar was not in order. SinceShri Bhatnagar died in the year 2009, theCommittee recommended correction of theallocation of Shri Utam Kumar Madankar,Sub-Engineer by revising his allocation fromM.P. to Chhattisgarh. After revising allocationof Shri Madankar to Chhattisgarh, the groundraised by Shri Pramod Kumar Chaturvediwould no longer sustain. In the light of theabove facts, the Committee recommendedrejection of representation of Shri PramodKumar Chaturvedi, Sub-Engineer for revisionof allocation from Chhattisgarh to M.P. Afterissue of order for revision of allocation ofUttam Kumar Madankar, Sub-Engineer fromM.P. to Chhattisgarh, a- detailed speakingorder shall be issued.

In compliance of directions of the Hon'bleHigh Court of M.P. dated 14.03.2013, therepresentation of Shri Mishra was considered bythe Committee. Shri Mishra raised the ground ofallocation of his juniors namely Shri B.P. Dubey,Shri P.K Baijal, Shri D.K. Gupta, Shri M.K. Jain,Shri G.P. Dixit, Shri D.R Choure, Shri RK.Ahirwar, Shri I.M. Khan, Shri V.P. Malviya, ShriP.K Pyasi, Shri P.K. Khare, Shri S.K.Chandryan, Shri KG. Maheshwari, Shri S.A.Qureshi, Shri Ramji Tripathi, Shri V.K. Sharma,Shri RK Shrivastava, Shri S.K. Jasuja, Shri RKPathak, Shri Y.K Agrawal and Shri K.P.Kushwaha were allocated to the State of MadhyaPradesh. Shri Mishra further contended that sixSub-Engineers have not been given any categoryand have been skipped from allocation toChhattisgarh. The Administrative Departmentinformed that all the juniors named by Shri Mishrawere allocated to M.P. under either mutualtransfer policy, revision of seniority or in reservedcategory. They were not allocated to M.P. underA-4 i.e. junior most category. It has further beeninformed that Shri Mishra has not specificallymentioned the name of six Sub-Engineers whohave not been given any category and have beenskipped from allocation to Chhattisgarh. In thelight of the above facts, the Committeerecommended rejection of representation ofShri Dinesh Babu Mishra, Sub-Engineer forrevision of allocation from Chhattisgarh toM.P. A detailed speakin2 order shall be issued.

59

60

61

62

Shri Lalit Gupta,Sub-Engineer,Public Health Engineering

(W.P. No.1065/11)

Shri Mukesh KumarNimje, Tracer,Public Health Engineering

(Representation)

Shri Deenanath Sirsant,Sub-Engineer,Panchayat and Rural Dev.

(OA No. 3292/02)(WP No. 20505/03)

Shri Harish Dariyani,Assistant Grade-III,Panchayat and Rural Dev.(Representation)

In compliance of directions of the Hon'bleHigh Court of M.P. dated 01.04.2011, therepresentation of Shri Gupta was considered bythe Committee. The Administrative Departmentadmitted that Shri Lalit Gupta is a handicappedemployee and was also recruited under physicallyhandicapped category. He is also receivinghandicapped allowance. The Committeeconsidered these facts and recommendedrevision of allocation of Shri Lalit Gupta, Sub-Engineer from Chhattisgarh to MadhyaPradesh on the ground that he is ahandicapped employee and is eligible forallocation to M.P. as per his option.

The Administrative Department of Shri Nimjeconfirmed that he belongs to 8C category, isdomicile of M.P. and had also opted for M.P. Inthe light of the above facts, the Committeeconsidered his representation andrecommended revision of allocation of ShriMukesh Kumar Nimje, Tracer fromChhattisgarh to M.P. under revised policydated 24.06.2010 for allocation of SC/STemployees as he belongs to SC category and isdomicile/optee of M.P.

In compliance of directions of the Hon'bleHigh Court of M.P. dated 15.09.2003, therepresentation of Shri Sirsant was considered bythe Committee. The Administrative Departmentconfirmed that home district of Shri Sirsant isDurg, Chhattisgarh and he had also opted forChhattisgarh. Accordingly, Govt. of M.P. as wellas Govt. of Chhattisgarh has given its no objectionfor revision of his allocation from M.P. toChhattisgarh. In the light of the above facts, theCommittee considered his representation andrecommended revision of allocation of ShriDeenanath Sirs ant, Sub-Engineer from M.P. toChhattisgarh.

The Administrative Department ofShri Dariyani confirmed that he is victim ofBhopal Gas Tragedy and has received acompensation of Rs. 50000/-. In the light of theabove facts, the Committee considered hisrepresentation and recommended revision ofallocation of Shri Harish Dariyani, AssistantGrade-III from Chhattisgarh to M.P. under thepolicy for allocation of victims of Bhopal GasTragedy.

(k 21

63 Shri SukhdevSub-Engineer,and Rural Dev.

Bisendre,Panchayat

In compliance of directions of the Hon'ble HighCourt of M.P. dated 17.09.2003, the Committeeconsidered the representation of Shri Bisendre.The Administrative Department of Shri Bisendreconfirmed that he belongs to SC category, isdomicile of Chhattisgarh and had also opted forChhattisgarh. In the light of the above facts, theCommittee recommended revision of allocationof Shri Sukhdev Bisendre, Sub-Engineer fromM.P. to Chhattisgarh under revised policydated 24.06.2010 for allocation of SC/STemployees as he belongs to SC category and isdomicile/optee of Chhattisgarh.

(WP No. 20351103)

In compliance of directions of the Hon'ble HighCourt of Chhattisgarh dated 18.11.2009,representations of Shri Patel and Shri Khan wereconsidered by the Committee. The AdministrativeDepartment in Government of M.P. informed thatno such employee having name of Shri LakhanLal Patel, Peon is posted in Department of

1--65--+-S-h-n-·-S-h-a-rif-·-Kh-a-n-,-P-e-on-,-iRevenue/Land Records, Madhya Pradesh. TheyRevenue (Land Records) have further informed that Sh. Sharif Khan slo

Shri Lal Khan, Peon is posted in Office ofCollector, Land Records, District Sidhi, M.P.However, Shri Khan has given an undertaking thathe had never filed any court case or W.P. No.1145/2009 and has been continuously posted inthis office since 11.10.1994. It was observed bythe Committee that Shri Lakhan Lal Patel slo ShriNathu Ram Patel and Shri Sharif Khan slo ShriAbdul Gaffar Khan are posted in the Collectorate,Land Records, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. In the lightof the above facts, the Committee recommendedthat the position be checked and verified by theDepartment of Revenue, Chhattisgarh as wellas Department of General Administration,Chhattisgarh. After verifying the facts, thecomments may be furnished to the Departmentof Revenue, M.P. and Department of GeneralAdministration, M.P. within one month forfurther verification and authentication. TheCommittee deferred these cases for its nextmeeting.

64 Shri Lakhan Lal Patel,Peon, Revenue (LandRecords)

(WP No.1145/09)

(WP No.1145/09)

66 Shri Dinesh ChandMalviya, Tracer,Revenue (Land Records)

(Representation)

The Administrative Department of Shri Malviyaconfirmed that he belongs to SC category, isdomicile of M.P. and had also opted for M.P. Inthe light of the above facts, the Committeeconsidered his representation andrecommended revision of allocation of ShriDinesh Chandra Malviya, Tracer fromChhattisgarh to M.P. under revised policy

Shukla, This case was placed before the Committee toconsider the applicability of directions of the

Child Hon'ble High Court of M.P. at Jabalpur dated03.09.2013. Whereby the Hon'ble Court hadquashed the order dated 08.08.2002 allocatingSmt. Manju Shukla to the Chhattisgarh as well asorder dated 05/13.01.2005 passed by CentralGovernment rejecting the representation of Smt.Shukla. It was observed that Smt. Shukla wasallocated to Chhattisgarh as per her option. Lateron, she changed her option to Madhya Pradeshand requested for her allocation to M.P. as perchanged option under the policy for allocation ofwomen employees. But her request was rejectedvide order dated 05/13.01.2005 by the CentralGovernment. In the light of the above facts, theCommittee recommended that appeal againstthe order dated 03.09.2013 be filed by the StateGovernment as well as by the CentralGovernment.

67 Smt. ManjuProject Officer,Woman &Development

68

(WP No. 24/09)

Shri Trilok Chand Gupta,Panchayat and SocialEducation Organizer

Panchayat ISocial Welfare

(WP No.769/05)

dated 24.06.2010 for allocation of SC/STemployees as he belongs to SC category and isdomicileloptee of M.P.

In compliance of directions of the Hon'bleHigh Court of M.P. dated 05.05.2011,representation of Shri Gupta was considered bythe Committee. Department of GeneralAdministration, Govt. of M.P. informed thatDepartment of Social Welfare only existed at thetime of allocation, which had further beenbifurcated as Panchayat Vibhag and Samaj KalyanVibhag after State Reorganization. Therefore, itwas not possible to trace service records of ShriGupta. However, Department of Panchayat, M.P.informed that Shri Gupta is working in the state ofM.P. in compliance of directions of the Hon'bleHigh Court of M.P. dated 05.05.2011. Shri Guptahas contended in his representation that 23 juniorsto him were allocated to M.P. in lower pay scaleby not giving ACP. But they were given benefit ofACP on 19.12.2002 with retrospective effect i.e.19.04.1999. In the light of the above facts, theCommittee recommended that the position beverified and checked whether juniors havebeen given ACP with retrospective effect afterthe cut-off date i.e, 23.09.2000 and reported tothe Central Government with detailed/specificcomments on allocation of his juniors to M.P.The Committee deferred the case for its nextmeeting.

r) 23 (

69

70

Shri Anil Kumar Mishra,Fisheries InspectorFisheries

(WA No.495/12)

Shri Chandra KishorBaghel, Assistant Director,Employment & Training

(Representation)

In compliance of directions of the Hon'bleHigh Court of M.P. dated 31.08.2012, therepresentation of Shri Mishra was considered bythe Committee. The Administrative Departmentadmitted that Shri Mishra's juniors viz. ShriDinesh Pathak, Shri Om Prakash Sharma and ShriSanjay Inamdar were given higher pay scale underACP scheme, with retrospective effect, i.e.effective before 23.09.2000 but were allocated toM.P. In lower pay scale. The Committeeconsidered these facts and recommendedrevision of allocation of Shri Anil KumarMishra, Fisheries Inspector from Chhattisgarhto Madhya Pradesh on the ground that hisjuniors were allocated to M.P.

The Central Government is in receipt of arepresentation from Shri Baghel for revision ofallocation from Chhattisgarh to M.P. under SC/STpolicy. The Department of Employment andTraining, Govt. of M.P. has informed that theyhave not received any representation from ShriBaghel so far. However, Government ofChhattisgarh has given its no objection forallocation of Shri Baghel to Madhya Pradesh.The Committee recommended revision of hisallocation to M.P. subject to verification of thefacts by Government of M.P. within two weeks.The Committee also desired that a copy of therepresentation be sent to his AdministrativeDepartment. However, after a lapse of onemonth, confirmation/ verification has not beenreceived from Government of M.P. despitereminder. Therefore, this case may be treatedas deferred.

Shri P.L. Kemiya, The Administrative Departments ofInspector, Weight & Shri Kemiya and Shri Bundela confirmed thatMeasurement, they belong to SC/ST category, are domicile of(Representation) M.P. and had also opted for M.P. In the light of

f----+--------------i the above facts, the Committee considred theirShri S.S. Bundela, Asst. representations and recommended revision ofGrade-II, Rural Industries, their allocation from Chhattisgarh to M.P.(Representation) under revised policy dated 24.06.2010 for

allocation of SC/ST employees as they belong toSC/ST category and are domicile/optee of M.P.

71

72

73

74

75

Shri Rajendra KumarShilpkar, UDC, Housing &Environment,(Representation)

Shri Munna Lal Ahinvar,Principal,School Education

(Representation)

Mohammad Tarik AliKhan, Asstt. Grade-III,Technical Education

(Representation)

The Central Government is in receipt of arepresentation from Shri Shilpkar for revision ofallocation from Chhattisgarh to M.P. under SC/STpolicy. The Administrative Department of ShriShilpkar informed that no representation from ShriShilpkar for revision of allocation fromChhattisgarh to M.P. has been received so far.The Committee recommended revision of hisallocation to M.P. subject to verification of thefacts by Government of M.P. within two weeks.The Committee also desired that a copy of therepresentation be sent to his AdministrativeDepartment. However, after a lapse of onemonth, confirmation! verification has not beenreceived from Government of M.P. despitereminder. Therefore, this case may be treatedas deferred.

The Administrative Department informed thatShri Munna Lal Ahinvar stood retired on30.09.2012 from the post of Asstt. Director,Planning, Office of Joint Director, Lok ShikshanSanchalanya, Sagar, M.P. In the light of theabove facts, the Committee recommended todrop this case from the agenda.

The Administrative Department of MohammadTarik Ali Khan informed that he is a non-Statecadre employee. Non-State cadre employeesstood allocated to the State where they wereworking as on the appointed day i.e. 01.11.2000.The Committee noted that no separate ordersfor allocation of such non-State cadre employeewere issued. Therefore, consideration ofallocation of non-State cadre employee does notfall within the purview of State AdvisoryCommittee. As such, the Committee did notconsider the representation. Since Shri Khan isa victim of Bhopal Gas Tragedy and physicallyhandicapped, the Committee, taking asympathetic view, opined that his request maybe considered by both the State Governmentsof M.P. and Chhattisgarh with mutual consent.

~ 25

.'

76 The Administrative Departments of theapplicants have informed that they have not yetreceived representations of these employees.Taking note of the above, the Committee

1----+-------------1 recommended that copies of representations be77 Shri Hari Singh Karoriya, sent to their Administrative Departments in

Head Master, Education Govt. of M.P. as well as Govt. of Chhattisgarh(Representation) for furnishing their comments. The Committee

i-7-8--+-S-h-n-'---A-tt-a-r---S-i-n-gh--ideferred these cases for its next meeting.

RAEO,Welfare and

79 Shri Gehru Singh Dhurve,Constable, Home

Shri Prakash NarayanPrajapati, Sub-Engineer,PWD(Representation)

Narbariya,Farmers'Agriculture(Representation)

Dev.

(Representation)

The meeting ended with a vote of thanks to the chair.

*****

26Q,t.

, , "

ANNEXURE "A"

LIST OFATTENDEES

1. Ms. Archana Verma, Joint Secretary, Government of India, New Delhi -Chairperson, Advisory Committee, M.P.

2. Shri K. Suresh, Principal Secretary, Department of General Administration,Government of Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal, M.P.

3. Ms. K. Kipgen, Director (SRS), DOPT, Govt. of India, New Delhi.4. Shri Manu Vyas, AIG (personal), Department of Home (Police), Government of

Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal, M.P.5. Shri G R Churendra, Deputy Secretary, Department of General Administration,

Govt. of Chhattisgarh, Raipur.6. Shri R. S. Gohal, Under Secretary, Department of Water Resources, Government

of Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal, M.P.7. Shri Dinesh, Section Officer, SR-I, DOPT, Govt. of India, New Delhi.8. Dr, Arvind Chaturvedi, Asstt. Director, Veterinary Services, Deptt of Animal

Husbandry, Govt of M.P., Bhopal.9. Smt. Bharti Gawade, Under Secretary, Department of Fanners' Welfare &

Agriculture Development, Govt. of M.P., Bhopal.10. Shri P K Thakur, Deputy Secretary, Department of Public Health Engineering,

Govt of Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal.11. Shri Rajendra K. Hirodiya, SE (Admin.), Department of Public Health

Engineering, Govt of Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal.12. Shri D.P. Agraiya, Under Secretary, Commerce and Industry, Government of

Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal, M.P.13. Smt. Kamla Upadhyay, Under Secretary, Department of Home, Government of

M.P., Bhopal, M.P.14. Dr. Ghani Ahmed Khan, Under Secretary, Department of Public Health &

Family Welfare, Govt of Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal.15. Shri H K Khare, Deputy Director, Department of Fisheries, Govt of Madhya

Pradesh, Bhopal.16. Shri H.N. Ahirwar, DSP Radio, Department of Home (Police Telecom), Govt of

Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal.17. Shri G D Lalwa, Under Secretary, Department of Panchayat, Government of

Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal, M.P.18. Smt. Kusum Thakur, Deputy Secretary, Department of Cottage and Rural

Industries, Government of Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal, M.P.19. Smt. Seema Jain, Asstt. Director, Directorate of Sericulture, Department of

Cottage and Rural Industries, Government of Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal, M.P.

27

~

• I'

20. Shri P K Singhal, Department of Horticulture, Government of Madhya Pradesh,Bhopal, M.P.

21. Dr. S.G. Ishtiaq, Deputy Director, Deptt of AYUSH, Govt of M.P., Bhopal.22. Shri K K Dwivedi, Directorate of School Education, Government of Madhya

Pradesh, Bhopal, M.P.23. Shri M.K. Shukla, S.E. (Admin), Department of Public Works, Govt of Madhya

Pradesh, Bhopal.24. Shri Ashok Kumar Malviya, Under Secretary, Department of Housing and

Environment, Government of Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal, M.P.25. Shri M L Karyam, Deputy Secretary, Department of Women & Child

Development, Government of Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal, M.P.26. Shri R C Shukla, Deputy Director, Department of Women & Child Development,

Government of Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal, M.P.27. Shri B.K. Chandel, Deputy Secretary, Department of Food, Government of

Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal, M.P.28. Shri K K Bhavsar, Joint Controller, Weight & Measurement, Government of

Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal, M.P.29. Smt. Kamla Ajitwar, Under Secretary, Department of Revenue, Government of

Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal, M.P.30. Shri Ramesh Patoda, Deputy Manager, School Education, Government of

Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal, M.P.31. Shri M K Dhakad, Research Officer, Department of Technical Education,

Government of Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal, M.P.32. Dr. S S K Naidu, Deputy Director, Department of Commerce Industry,

Government of Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal, M.P.33. Shri A P Singh, Department of Home (Police), Government of Madhya Pradesh,

Bhopal, M.P.34. Shri P K Srivastav, Asstt. Engineer, Department of Water Resources,

Government of Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal, M.P.35. Smt. Shobha Nikunj, Section Officer, Department of Horticulture, Government

of Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal, M.P.36. Shri Ravindra Potar, Department of Civil Supply, Government of Madhya

Pradesh, Bhopal, M.P.

******

28