01Facts
The petitioner, a retired Assistant Accounts Officer, retired on 30 April 2026. The Commissioner, Chambal Division, approved his contractual appointment to the post of Assistant Accounts Officer at Janpad Panchayat, Raun, initially for one year, by order dated 15 July 2026. After the petitioner submitted a joining report, the Commissioner issued a modified order on 23 September 2026 correcting an erroneous name while keeping the remaining terms of the earlier order intact.
p. 1The petitioner alleged that, despite submitting a further joining report and a representation dated 24 September 2026, the respondents had not executed the contractual agreement or permitted him to work. He sought implementation of the orders, execution of the agreement, release of salary, and a decision on his representation.
pp. 1–2The State had no objection to a direction requiring the representation to be decided.
p. 302Issues
i.Whether respondent No. 5 should be directed to consider and decide the petitioner’s representation dated 24 September 2026 concerning the modified appointment order.
p. 3ii.Whether the Court should itself direct implementation of the appointment orders, execution of the contractual agreement, and release of salary.
p. 1, 303Law Applied
The petition was brought under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, which empowers the High Court to issue appropriate directions.
p. 3The Court applied the principle that an administrative representation raising a grievance should be considered and decided in accordance with law through a reasoned and speaking order. No statute, precedent, or substantive rule governing the petitioner’s entitlement to contractual appointment or salary was discussed or applied.
p. 304Reasoning
The Court identified the dispute as concerning the alleged non-implementation of the Commissioner’s modified order and the petitioner’s unresolved representation.
p. 3Given the nature of the controversy and the State’s lack of objection, it considered it appropriate to direct respondent No. 5 to decide the representation, taking the modified order into account. The Court did not determine whether the petitioner was entitled to the contractual agreement, work, or salary.
p. 305Holding
The petition was disposed of with a direction to respondent No. 5 to consider and decide the petitioner’s representation dated 24 September 2026, in accordance with law and by a reasoned and speaking order, keeping in view the Commissioner’s modified order dated 23 September 2026.
p. 3The decision must be made within two weeks of receipt of a certified copy of the order and communicated to the petitioner forthwith.
pp. 3–4Original Court PDF
Dinesh Chandra JainvsThe State Of Madhya Pradesh
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
