Dr. Anil Kumar Gharia vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 535 MP

                                   1
   HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT INDORE
               REVIEW PETITION NO.209 OF 2021
        (Dr. Anil Kumar Gharia vs The State of Madhya Pradesh)


Indore, Dated 08.03.2021
      Mr. L.C. Patne, learned counsel for the petitioner.

      Mr. Amol Shrivastava, learned Government Advocate for the

respondents/State.

Heard.

Registry is directed to list this matter along with record of Writ

Appeal No.1632 of 2018.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the

order passed in Civil Appeal No.4675 of 2019 (Dr. R.S. Sohane vs

State of Madhya Pradesh), the petitioner has filed the present review

petition. This is a case where petitioner was made to retire on

attaining the age of 62 years, whereas his claim was to continue up-to

65 years of age. The Division Bench of this Court has decided the

matter against similarly situated persons, however the said order

could not sustain judicial scrutiny and was set-aside by the Hon'ble

Supreme Court. The petitioner succeeded in the case on the basis of

Supreme Court judgment delivered in the case of R.S. Sohane

(Supra) but the Court has not granted the backwages for the

intervening period and the petitioner was not permitted to perform his

duties on the said period. Although his age of superannuation is

enhanced and he has been permitted to join back his services, but the

HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT INDORE REVIEW PETITION NO.209 OF 2021 (Dr. Anil Kumar Gharia vs The State of Madhya Pradesh)

intervening period during which the interim order was passed but he

was not permitted to perform his duties and needs to be regularized

by giving arrears of backwages. The various Division Benches of this

Court in similar matters granted backwages to the petitioner. By

placing reliance on the said orders of Division Benches learned

counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is also a similar

situated person and his relief regarding backwages have not been

considered by this Court and, therefore, this is a reason for filing a

review petition by the petitioner, coupled with the reason that in the

case of R.S. Sohane (Supra), a liberty was granted to the petitioner

by Supreme Court to file appropriate proceeding.

Faced with this situation, learned Government Advocate for the

respondents/State prays for time to file response and to seek

instructions in the matter.

List the matter immediately thereafter along with the record of

Writ Appeal No.1632 of 2018.

               (SUJOY PAUL)                             (SHAILENDRA SHUKLA)
                  JUDGE                                       JUDGE


   Arun/-

Digitally signed by
ARUN NAIR
Date: 2021.03.08
14:18:28 +05'30'

HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT INDORE REVIEW PETITION NO.209 OF 2021 (Dr. Anil Kumar Gharia vs The State of Madhya Pradesh)