Preeti Kushwah vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 5670 MP

                                      1
          THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                            W.A.No.1103/2020
                (Preeti Kushwah Vs. State of M.P. and others)


Gwalior, Dated:- 20.9.2021
      Shri Chetan Kanungo, learned counsel for the petitioner.

      Shri M.P.S. Raghuvanshi, learned Additional Advocate General

for the respondent/State.

(1) The instant intra court appeal u/S.2(i) of M.P. Uchcha

Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 assails

the final order dated 24.9.2020 passed by the learned Single Judge in

W.P.No.14001/2020 while exercising writ jurisdiction u/Art. 226 of

Constitution dismissing the petition in question on the ground of

unexplained delay and laches.

(2) Pertinently, the petition in question has been filed seeking

benefits flowing from the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of

Ramnaresh Rawat Vs. Ashwini Ray & others (2017) 3 SCC 436

to the father of petitioner on the foundational facts that the father was

classified as a permanent employee in 2006, whereafter he died in

harness on 29.5.2015 i.e. much before the verdict of Apex Court in

Ramnaresh Rawat (supra) was pronounced in 2016.

(3) It is undisputed that the petition in question i.e. W.P.

No.14001/2020 was filed on 22.9.2020 after about 5 ½ years of

death of the father of petitioner.

(4) Learned counsel for appellant has placed reliance on a

judgment dated 7.10.2020 passed in W.A.No.823/2020 (Jay Prakash

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH W.A.No.1103/2020 (Preeti Kushwah Vs. State of M.P. and others)

Parashar Vs. State of M.P.) by the Coordinate Bench of this Court

and also on the verdict of Apex Court in the case of Rameshwar

Manjhi (Deceased) through his son Lakhiram Manjhi Vs.

Management of Sangramgarh Colliery and others reported in

(1994) 1 SCC 292 and Sudha Shrivastava Vs. Comptroller and

Auditor General of India reported in (1996) 1 SCC 63. It is the

contention of learned counsel for the appellant/petitioner that

petitioner being daughter of the deceased government servant is

entitled to raise the cause of non-grant of benefit under the verdict of

Ramnaresh Rawat (supra) to her father even after his death. It is

submitted that since the cause of non-grant of benefit under

Ramnaresh Rawat (supra) verdict is a recurring cause of action

which accrues to the legal heir of the deceased Government Servant,

the Writ Court ought not to have dismissed the petition in question

merely on the ground of delay and laches.

(5) Taking up first the judgment of the Division Bench of this

Court rendered on 7.10.2020, it is seen that the petitioner/appellant

therein was a government employee who had been classified as

permanent employee had himself approached the Court in writ

petition and as well as before the writ appellate court to seek

direction for grant of benefit accruing to him under the verdict of

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH W.A.No.1103/2020 (Preeti Kushwah Vs. State of M.P. and others)

Ramnaresh Rawat (supra). In this factual background the

Coordinate Bench of this Court ignored the delay of approaching this

Court of nearly three years of the retirement by holding that since

similarly placed employees were extended the benefit flowing from

Ramnaresh Rawat's case, non-grant of benefit to petitioner therein

amounted to discrimination. The Coordinate Bench therefore directed

that the case of the petitioner therein be considered ignoring the fact

of delayed approach to the court in the light of similarly placed

employees having been extended the benefit.

(6) As regards the judgment of Apex Court on which reliance is

placed by petitioner i.e. Rameshwar Manjhi (deceased) the Apex

Court was dealing with the question as to whether an industrial

dispute survives when the workman concerned dies during its

pendency. The question was answered by the Apex Court in

affirmative. While in the case of Sudha Shrivastava (supra) the

question posed was whether the heir, of a civil servant who was

prosecuted in a Court of law but was ultimately acquitted, though by

that time he had died, can be permitted to continue the proceeding

before the Court and claim the grant of retrospective promotion to

the deceased and the consequential monetary benefits. This question

was also answered in the affirmative.

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH W.A.No.1103/2020 (Preeti Kushwah Vs. State of M.P. and others)

(7) On the strength of aforesaid two decisions of Apex Court the

learned counsel Shri Chetan Kanungo for the appellant in his

inimitable, persuasive but yet humble style, submits that the delay in

the present case ought to have been ignored by the Writ Court, since

the petitioner being legal heir of the deceased government servant is

entitled to pursue the legitimate service claim of deceased

government servant.

(8) The essential distinction in the facts attending the cases before

the Apex Court and the present case is that in both the aforesaid

cases before the Apex Court the litigation for claiming the benefit

had been initiated by the government servant, who died during its

pendency thereby enabling the legal heir to continue and pursue the

cause raised by the deceased government servant. On the other hand,

in the instant case the government servant died in May, 2015 and had

never raised the claim of grant of minimum of regular pay scale for

the obvious reason that the said benefit was not available to him till

the time of his death owing to the verdict of Ramnaresh Rawat

(supra) having been rendered subsequent to his death. Thus, when the

cause was never raised before the appropriate form by the government

servant during his life time and infact the cause being raised now

by the legal heir was not available to the deceased government

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH W.A.No.1103/2020 (Preeti Kushwah Vs. State of M.P. and others)

servant during his life time, renders such a cause non-justiciable.

(9) The learned Single Judge has relied upon various decisions of

the Apex Court on the question of delay and laches which may defeat

the remedy otherwise available under Article 226 of Constitution.

These decisions have not been distinguished by the learned counsel

for the appellant.

(10) In view of above discussion, the reliance placed by the learned

Single Judge on the two decisions of the Apex Court in the case of

Rameshwar Manjhi (deceased) through his son Lakhiram Manjhi

(supra) and Sudha Shrivastava (supra) and the Coordinate Bench

decision of this Court are of no avail to the petitioner/appellant.

(11) Accordingly, this Court sees no reason to take a different view

than the one taken by the learned Single Judge and therefore,

declines interference and dismisses the present appeal, sans cost.

E-copy/Certified copy as per rules/directions.

                      (Sheel Nagu)                            (Deepak Kumar Agarwal)
                         Judge                                        Judge
                        20/09/2021                                 20/09/2021
Pawar*
   ASHISH
   PAWAR
   2021.09.21
   10:40:59
   +05'30'