Smt. Bharti Shkaya vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 3107 MP

                                       1
             The High Court of Madhya Pradesh
                                                           W.A.No.586/2021

          (Smt. Bharti Shakya Vs. State of M.P. & Ors.)
Gwalior dated 8.07.2021
      Shri B.P.Singh, learned counsel for the appellant.
      Shri M.P.S.Raghuwanshi, learned Additional Advocate General
for the respondents/State.

This intra-Court appeal has been filed against the order passed by

the learned Single Judge while exercising writ jurisdiction under

Article 226 of the Constitution dismissing the petition in question on

the ground of delay and laches by which the petitioner had prayed for

the following reliefs:-

"That, a direction may kindly be given to the respondents to pay the petitioner the claim of petitioner's father as minimum of the pay of the classified post as per graded pay scale from the date of his classification as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ram Naresh Rawat.

(ii) Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper, may also be given to the petitioner."

The grievance of the petitioner is that she is the daughter

(nominee) of the deceased government servant who died on

22.10.2012. It was the submission of petitioner before the Writ Court

that benefit of ratio laid down by the Apex Court in case of Ram

Naresh Rawat Vs. Ashwini Ray, 2017 (3) SCC 436 for grant of

minimum stage in the regular pay scale to classified employee was not

extended to the deceased father of the petitioner.

Learned Single Judge dismissed the petition on two grounds. The

first being delayed approach and the second that judgment of Ram

Naresh Rawat (supra) had not been pronounced when the father of

The High Court of Madhya Pradesh W.A.No.586/2021

the petitioner expired in 2012.

This Court has no reason to take a different view than the one

taken by the learned Single Judge for the simple reason that to

successfully invoke the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the

Constitution the obstacle of delay and laches has to be crossed which

the petitioner failed to do. The death of father of petitioner took place

8-9 years prior to filing of the petition. Moreso, the demand raised was

in regard to the benefit flowing from a judgment of the Apex Court

which was pronounced nearly 3-4 years after the death of father of the

petitioner.

Had the father of petitioner been alive, the situation would have

been different, but the petitioner is a mere nominee whose entitlements

are limited to terminal/pensionary benefit, and therefore, the petitioner

as a nominee cannot raise any claim which were due to her father

during his service tenure when he was alive.

Accordingly, this Court deems it appropriate not to entertain this

petition and dismisses the same on admission stage itself.

Dismissed.

             (Sheel Nagu)                          (Deepak Kumar Agarwal)
                Judge                                    Judge
ms/-


        MADHU
        SOODAN
        PRASAD
        2021.07.09
        18:10:42 -07'00'