Madhya Pradesh High Court
Santosh Raghuwanshi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 20 September, 2021
Author: Vishal Mishra
1
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL SEAT AT JABALPUR
Jabalpur, Dated : 20.09.2021
W.P.No. 13633/2017
(Siddhmani Mishra and others Vs. State of M.P. and others)
Dr. Anuvad Shrivastava, learned counsel for the petitioners.
Shri Ankit Agrawal, learned Govt. Adv. for the respondents/State.
W.P.No. 13708/2017
(Kailash Narayan and others Vs. State of M.P. and others)
Shri Anil Lala, learned counsel for the petitioners.
Shri Ankit Agrawal, learned Govt. Adv. for the respondents/State.
W.P.No. 14120/2017
(Sukhlal and others Vs. State of M.P. and others)
Dr. Anuvad Shrivastava, learned counsel for the petitioners.
Shri Ankit Agrawal, learned Govt. Adv. for the respondents/State.
W.P.No. 14461/2017
(Narendra Jaiswal and others Vs. State of M.P. and others)
Shri Sanjay Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners.
Shri Ankit Agrawal, learned Govt. Adv. for the respondents/State.
Shri Pramod Kumar Sahu, learned counsel for respondent no. 3.
W.P.No. 14907/2017
(Badri Prasad Sahu and others Vs. State of M.P. and others)
Shri Anil Lala, learned counsel for the petitioners.
Shri Ankit Agrawal, learned Govt. Adv. for the respondents/State.
W.P.No. 15066/2017
(Dalbeer Singh and others Vs. State of M.P. and others)
Shri Sanjay Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners.
Shri Ankit Agrawal, learned Govt. Adv. for the respondents/State.
Shri Pramod Kumar Sahu, learned counsel for respondent no. 3.
W.P.No. 15636/2017
(Smt. Kiran Raghuvanshi and others Vs. State of M.P. and others)
Shri Anil Lala, learned counsel for the petitioners.
Shri Ankit Agrawal, learned Govt. Adv. for the respondents/State.
Shri Abhijeet Bhowmik, learned counsel for respondent no. 3.
W.P.No. 15769/2017
(Dhaniram Patel and others Vs. State of M.P. and others)
Dr. Anuvad Shrivastava, learned counsel for the petitioners.
Shri Ankit Agrawal, learned Govt. Adv. for the respondents/State.
W.P.No. 16045/2017
(Pushpendra Singh Vs. State of M.P. and others)
Shri Sanjay Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Ankit Agrawal, learned Govt. Adv. for the respondents/State.
Shri Pramod Kumar Sahu, learned counsel for respondent no. 3.
W.P.No. 16470/2017
(Mahendra Singh and others Vs. State of M.P. and others)
Shri Sanjay Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners.
Shri Ankit Agrawal, learned Govt. Adv. for the respondents/State.
W.P.No. 16667/2017
(Jagdish Prasad Pawar and others Vs. State of M.P. and others)
Shri Anil Lala, learned counsel for the petitioners.
Shri Ankit Agrawal, learned Govt. Adv. for the respondents/State.
Shri Abhijeet Bhowmik, learned counsel for respondent no. 3.
W.P.No. 16668/2017
(Mukhtar Mohd. Khan and others Vs. State of M.P. and others)
Shri Anil Lala, learned counsel for the petitioners.
Shri Ankit Agrawal, learned Govt. Adv. for the respondents/State.
W.P.No. 16689/2017
(Pancham Lal Raikwar and others Vs. State of M.P. and others)
Shri Anil Lala, learned counsel for the petitioners.
Shri Ankit Agrawal, learned Govt. Adv. for the respondents/State.
Shri Abhijeet Bhowmik, learned counsel for respondent no. 3.
W.P.No. 17116/2017
(Shiv Shankar Tripathi and anr. Vs. State of M.P. and others)
Shri Sanjay Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners.
Shri Ankit Agrawal, learned Govt. Adv. for the respondents/State.
Shri Pramod Kumar Sahu, learned counsel for respondent no. 3.
W.P.No. 17309/2017
(Krishn Pratap Singh and others Vs. State of M.P. and others)
Shri V.D.S. Chouhan, learned counsel for the petitioners.
Shri Ankit Agrawal, learned Govt. Adv. for the respondents/State.
W.P.No. 18834/2017
(Ashok Kumar Verma and others Vs. State of M.P. and others)
Shri Rahul Choubey, learned counsel for the petitioners.
Shri Ankit Agrawal, learned Govt. Adv. for the respondents/State.
W.P.No. 18890/2017
(Anish Kumar Shukla and anr. Vs. State of M.P. and others)
Shri Sanjay Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners.
Shri Ankit Agrawal, learned Govt. Adv. for the respondents/State.
W.P.No. 20437/2017
(Natwar Choubey and anr. Vs. State of M.P. and others)
Dr. Anuvad Shrivastava, learned counsel for the petitioners.
Shri Ankit Agrawal, learned Govt. Adv. for the respondents/State.
W.P.No. 782/2018
(Leeladhar Choubey and Anr. Vs. State of M.P. and others)
Shri Anil Lala, learned counsel for the petitioners.
Shri Ankit Agrawal, learned Govt. Adv. for the respondents/State.
W.P.No. 862/2018
(Suryakant Dubey Vs. State of M.P. and others)
Shri V.D.S. Chouhan, learned counsel for the petitioners.
Shri Ankit Agrawal, learned Govt. Adv. for the respondents/State.
Shri Pramod Kumar Sahu, learned counsel for respondent no. 3.
W.P.No. 11508/2018
(Laxmi Narayan Yadav and others Vs. State of M.P. and others)
Shri Jafar Khan, learned counsel for the petitioners.
Shri Ankit Agrawal, learned Govt. Adv. for the respondents/State.
W.P.No. 8489/2019
(Santosh Raghuwanshi and Anr. Vs. State of M.P. and others)
Shri Anil Lala, learned counsel for the petitioners.
Shri Ankit Agrawal, learned Govt. Adv. for the respondents/State.
As the common question of compulsory retirement is involved in all these
petitions, therefore, they are taken up for analogous hearing.
For the sake of convenience the facts and taken from W.P. No.
22251/2013.
The present petition has been seeking the following reliefs :-
(a) to quash the circular dated 19.8.2010 issued by the respondent
no. 1.
(b) to direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioners
for regularization in services.
(c) to quash the order dated 20.9.2012.
(d) to direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioners
for regularization in services.
(e) to direct the respondents not to discontinue the services of
petitioners.
(f) to direct the respondents to pay salary in the pay scale of Rs.4440-
7440 pm to the petitioners.
(g) Any other relief which the Hon'ble court deem fit and proper
looking to the facts and circumstances of the case in favour of the
petitioner.
It is pointed out that the aforesaid controversy came up before this court
Bench at Indore in W.P. No. 3975/2018, (Hanuman Joshi and others Vs.
State of M.P. and others) and in analogous hearing, the controversy was put
to rest, vide order dated 17th of October 2019 and the petition was allowed and
the order of compulsory retirement was quashed. The court has held as under:-
11. The petitioners were waiting for their absorption order, but
to their utter surprise the respondent no.2 vide its order dated
13/09/2017 has directed the respondent no.4 as well as the
liquidators of All the District Co-operative Agriculture and Rural
Development Bank, (ARDB's) of the State to compulsorily retire
the petitioners only on the ground that they have not been
absorbed till date and the respondent no.4 is not in a position to
pay regular salary to its employees. Being aggrieved by the said
order, the petitioners have filed the present petition.
12. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that although
the petitioners have found eligible for absorption, the
respondent has not passed any order regarding absorption of
the petitioners in accordance with the scheme of absorption
floated by the respondent. It is further submitted that the
process of absorption is not yet completed, therefore, the
petitioners cannot be compulsorily retired. It has been further
stated that the petitioners have not paid their regular salary
since August, 2011. He further submitted that other similarly
situated employees of the ARDB's have also been absorbed in
the services of District Central Co-operative Bank, (DCCB's) and
have been paid their dues, but the petitioners are proposed for
compulsory retirement. It is further submitted that as many as
53 vacant posts are available in Rajgarh District, but the said
posts are being filled up by direct recruitment. When the
petitioners have be found eligible for in DCCB's and the vacant
posts available then the said posts ought to have been filled up
by the respondent by absorption of the petitioners on such
vacant posts. In such circumstances, he submits that both the
petitions deserves to be allowed.
13. The respondents have filed their reply and in the said reply,
the respondents have stated that after the impugned
communication dated 13/09/2017, the respondent no.2 has
issued a Circular dated 17/05/2018 on the subject absorption. It
is submitted that in pursuance of aforesaid communication and
subsequent Policy, the process of absorption of employees of
respondent no.5 including the petitioners is in progress. It has
further been stated that initially the Policy for absorption was
for one year only. However, the same was subsequently
extended upto 30/06/2017. The final decision in respect of
absorption of employees of respondent 5 was pending and in
pursuance of letter dated 4/03/2017, extended period was
expired on 30/06/2017.
14. In view of the reply submitted by the respondents that as
the matter of absorption is pending before the respondent(s),
therefore, instead of deciding the case on merit, I deem it
proper to dispose of both these writ petitions by issuing
following directions :-
(i) That, the impugned order dated 13/09/2017 is hereby set
aside. It is directed that the respondents shall complete the
process of absorption of the petitioners in DCCBs within a
period of six months from the date of receipt of certified copy of
the order.
(ii) So far as payment of salary to the petitioners is concerned,
the respondent no.5 Bank is in liquidation, therefore, as per
Section 71 of the M.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, the
liquidator is having power to determine the claim of the
petitioners. In view of the aforesaid, the petitioners are free to
make their claim before the liquidator regarding the payment of
salary, within a period of one month from the date of certified
copy of the order and on receipt of such claim, the liquidator
shall decide the same in accordance with law, preferably within
a period of three months.
A copy of this order be retained in the record of
W.P.No.18107/2017.
The grounds which are required to be considered by the Authorities while
compulsory retiring a Government Servant was considered in the case of
Madhya Pradesh State Cooperative Dairy Federation Limited And
Anothher Vs. Rajnesh Kumar Jamindar and Others, reported in (2009) 15
SCC 221, wherein the Division Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court and has held as
under :-
"The law relating to compulsory retirement in public interest is no
longer res integra. The provisions had been made principally for
weeding out dead wood. An order of compulsory retirement being
not penal in nature can be subject to judicial review inter alia :
(I) when it is based on no material;
(ii) When it is arbitrary;
(iii) when it is without application of mind; and
(iv) when there is no evidence in support of the case."
In the present case, no such conditions are available to the respondents
to compulsory retire the petitioner. The only reason which has been shown by
the respondents while compulsory retiring the person is the financial constraints
to be faced by the employer which is not the criteria for consideration for
compulsory retiring a employee. Compulsory retirement by way of an economic
measure is in the interest of the employer Such a power does not even exist in
the Regulations nor had any such ground been taken in the counter-affidavit
before the High Court. Furthermore, it is well settled that while a power is
exercised by an authority, ordinarily the reasons contained in the order should be
supported by the materials on record. The grounds which are required to be
taken for compulsory retirement is when the employee is declared as a
deadwood for the institution.
It is submitted that in all these writ petitions, the petitioners have been
compulsorily retired by a common order in pursuance to the directions given by
the senior authorities therefore the judgment is fully applicable to the case of
the petitioners. In the first session, when the matter was taken up the State
counsel was directed to seek instructions in the matter with respect to the fact
that whether the judgment passed in the case of Hanuman Joshi and others,
(supra) covers the issue and after going through the judgment and the
pleadings and the writ petition, counsel appearing for the State fairly submits in
the second round that as far as the quashment of order of compulsory
retirement is concerned, the issue is covered but the petitioners were found fit
for absorption. The aforesaid fact was specifically pleaded that the petitioners
were found eligible for absorption. But in the present case, the petitioners
cases are to be scrutinized to find out whether they are fit for absorption.
At this stage, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that
identically placed employees like petitioners have already been considered and
granted absorption and on this ground alone several petitioners have filed
applications for withdrawal of the petitions because their services have already
been absorbed and the only grievance, which remains to be considered by the
authorities regarding their payments and emoluments. Therefore, they have
preferred to withdraw their writ petitions and raise their grievances before the
department itself.
As large number of identically placed employees have already been
considered and absorbed in the services, therefore, the prayer is made to
dispose of these petitions in the light of the case of Hanuman Joshi and
others, (supra) and the authorities may be granted liberty to examine the
cases of the petitioners and if they are found identically situated, then the
benefit as extended to others be also extended to the petitioners.
Learned counsel appearing for the State has no objection to the
innocuous prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioners, but submits that
the liberty may be granted to the State to verify this aspect whether the
petitioners are identically situated to others and whether they are eligible for
absorption of their services in the respondent- department.
The prayer of respondents appears to be reasonable. In these
circumstances, all these writ petitions are disposed of with the direction to the
petitioners to file detailed separate individual comprehensive fresh representation
to the respondent(s), who has passed the order of compulsory retirement within
a period of fifteen days from today and in case such representations are filed,
the authorities are directed to dwell upon the same and pass self contained
speaking order and communicate the outcome of the same to the petitioners
within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this
order alongwith separate and individual representation. It is made clear that
the respondents - authorities will be at liberty to examine the cases of the
petitioners/employees and will see whether they are entitled for absorption.
They are further required to see that whether they are similarly situated to
the identically placed employees, who hare already been considered and
granted the benefit of absorption. If the petitioners are found entitled for the
benefit as claimed by them, the same may be extended to them within the
aforesaid period or else a self contained speaking order be passed by the
authorities and outcome be communicated to them. The orders of compulsory
retirement, (in all these writ petitions) are quashed.
The writ petition stands disposed of.
No orders as to costs.
(VISHAL MISHRA)
JUDGE
bks
BASANT KUMAR
SHRIVAS
2021.09.24 10:56:25
+05'30'
