Ankush Waghmare vs M.P. State Co Operative Dairy ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 8453 MP

                                                         1                                WP-475-2014
                                 The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
                                           WP No. 475 of 2014
                         (ANKUSH WAGHMARE Vs M.P. STATE CO OPERATIVE DAIRY FEDERATION LIMITED DUGDHA
                                         BHAWAN, DUGDHA MARG BHOPAL AND OTHERS)


                      Jabalpur, Dated : 08-12-2021
                              Smt. Smita Arora, learned counsel for the petitioner.

                              Shri Gaurav Tiwari, learned counsel for the respondents No.1 to

4/State.

Shri P.K. Sahu, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent No.5/State. Petitioner has filed this writ petition making a prayer to set aside

impugned order dated 18.06.2003 contained in Annexure P/1 and grant similar benefits as has been granted to similarly situated employees.

Vide order dated 18.06.2003, decision was taken by General Manager on basis of recommendation of Scrutiny Committee to compulsory retire the petitioner from service and petitioner was compulsorily retired in accordance with Rule 13(1) of Karmchari Bharti Vargikaran tatha Seva Sharte Viniyam, 1985.

Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that this Court in its order dated 10.12.2011 passed in W.P.(S) No.131 of 2004 [Rejendra

Kumar Jain vs Madhya Pradesh State Co-operative Dairy Federation Ltd., Bhopal and others] had relied on judgment of Apex Court in case of Madhya Pradesh State Co-operative Dairy Federation Ltd. and another vs Rajnesh Kumar Jamindar and others reported in (2009) 15 SCC 221 and had quashed the order of compulsory retirement and directed reinstatement of petitioner with 50% back wages. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that case of petitioner is squarely covered with aforesaid judgment, therefore, impugned order be set aside in light of aforesaid judgment and petitioner be reinstated in service with 50% back wages.

Counsel appearing for the respondents No. 1 to 4 as well as Panel Lawyer appearing for the respondent No. 5/State opposed the prayer made by counsel for the petitioner and submitted that petitioner had approached the Signature SAN Not Verified

Digitally signed by VINOD KUMAR TIWARI Date: 2021.12.10 12:20:31 IST 2 WP-475-2014 Court after a considerable delay. Impugned order was passed in year 2003 and petitioner had filed this petition in year 2014. Petition filed by petitioner deserves to be dismissed on ground of delay and laches.

Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that after passing of impugned order, petitioner had filed a writ petition before this Court, which stood registered as W.P.(S) No. 2060/2003. Said petition was withdrawn with

liberty to raise objection before appropriate forum as per law. Petitioner was agitating his case before authorities and meanwhile, order dated 10.12.2011 was passed by this Court and thereafter, petitioner had filed this petition before this Court. Counsel for the petitioner relied on judgment passed by Apex Court in State of Karnataka vs C. Lalitha, reported in (2006) 2 SCC

747. Relying on para 26 of said judgment, it is submitted that service jurisprudence evolved by this Court from time to time postulates that all persons similarly situated should be treated similarly. Only because one person had approached the court that would not mean that persons situated similarly should be treated differently. It is not the case that petitioner was fence sitter and has not agitated the issue before the authorities. Petitioner was a member of association which had filed writ petition agitating the issue but later on same was withdrawn with liberty to raise the issue before the authorities. Petitioner was continuously pressing the issue, meanwhile, judgment dated 10.12.2011 was passed.

Considering the aforesaid submissions, objection of respondents is overruled. Petitioner be given same benefit as has been extended to similarly situated employees. Impugned order dated 18.06.2003 is quashed. Petitioner be reinstated with 50% back wages, if he had not reached age of superannuation, and he may be given all other benefits which was extended to similarly situated employees pursuant to decision of this Court dated 10.12.2011 passed in W.P. (S) No. 131/2004.

With aforesaid direction, writ petition filed by the petitioner is disposed off.

Signature
 SAN      Not
Verified

Digitally signed by
VINOD KUMAR
TIWARI
Date: 2021.12.10
12:20:31 IST
                                                  3           WP-475-2014
                            C.C. as per rules.


                                                     (VISHAL DHAGAT)
                                                          JUDGE

                      vkt




Signature
 SAN      Not
Verified

Digitally signed by
VINOD KUMAR
TIWARI
Date: 2021.12.10
12:20:31 IST