Madhya Pradesh High Court
Dhanraj Pawar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 8 September, 2021
Author: Chief Justice
1 WA-443-2021
The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
WA-00443-2021
(((((((((((((DHANRAJ PAWAR Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)))))))))))))
WA/00378/2021, WA/00386/2021, WA/00403/2021, WA/00404/2021, WA/00406/2021,
WA/00436/2021, WA/00437/2021, WA/00438/2021, WA/00439/2021, WA/00440/2021,
WA/00441/2021, WA/00442/2021, WA/00443/2021, WA/00444/2021, WA/00445/2021,
WA/00446/2021, WA/00447/2021, WA/00465/2021, WA/00466/2021, WA/00482/2021,
WA/00506/2021, WA/00507/2021, WA/00508/2021, WA/00546/2021
4
Jabalpur, Dated : 08-09-2021
Heard through Video Conferencing.
Shri Deepak Awasthy, Shri Vipin Yadav, Ms. Sneh Mishra, Shri
Deependra Kumar Mishra and Shri Adamya Bajpai, learned counsel for the
appellants in respective appeals.
Shri Shobhitaditya, learned counsel for the respondent/M.P.State Civil
Supplies Corporation Ltd.
In all these appeals the judgment passed by the Single Bench dated
25/03/2021 is under challenge. The Single Judge has by the aforesaid
judgment dismissed the writ petitions filed by the appellants. Appellants in the
present appeals prayed for a direction to the respondents to allow them to
continue in service till they attain the age of 62 years in terms of the decision
of the Government which the respondent/Corporation adopted but the stand
of the Corporation was that the decision to adopt the Government policy was
taken in 217th meeting of the Board of Directors, in Agenda Item No.
217/2019, enhancing the age of retirement of employees of the Corporation
from 60 to 62 years on 29/03/2020 with effect from 31/03/2020 and
therefore, all those who have attained the age of 60 years prior to 31/03/2020
would be liable to retire on the basis of the old policy. This Court while
issuing notice in the appeals, has directed the respondent/Corporation to
allow some of the appellants who have not attained the age of 62 years to
continue in service till they attain the age of 62 years.
The matters are ripe for hearing.
Learned counsel for the appellants pray for adjournment to prepare and
Signature Not
SAN
Verified finally argue the matter, but at the same time, they also contend that despite
Digitally signed by
MANJU CHOUKSEY
Date: 2021.09.11
14:51:45 IST
2 WA-443-2021
some of the employees having attained the age of 62 years and now not
working with respondent, their retiral dues are not being paid.
Shri Shobhitaditya, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-
Corporation submits that till the dispute about the age of superannuation in
respect of those attaining age of 60 years prior to 31/03/2020 is decided, the
retiral dues cannot be quantified by taking 62 years as the age of retirement.
Having regard to the aforesaid submissions, the interim order passed
by this Court is modified and clarified in terms that such of the employees
who on the strength of interim order passed by this Court, have attained the
age of 62 years, may be paid their retiral dues by deeming them to have
retired at the age of 60 years, subject to final outcome of the writ appeals.
Matters to come up for hearing on 07/10/2021. To be listed along
with application filed through Provisional ID No.106313/2021.
(MOHAMMAD RAFIQ) (VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA)
CHIEF JUSTICE JUDGE
manju
Signature
SAN Not
Verified
Digitally signed by
MANJU CHOUKSEY
Date: 2021.09.11
14:51:45 IST
