Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ghanshyam Prasad Kushwaha vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 21 July, 2022
Author: Sujoy Paul
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRAKASH CHANDRA GUPTA
ON THE 21st OF JULY, 2022
WRIT APPEAL No. 925 of 2021
Between:-
GHANSHYAM PRASAD KUSHWAHA S/O LATE
SHRI RAMDEEN KUSHWAHA, AGED ABOUT 59
YEARS, OCCUPATION: RETD. ASST. GRADE II
FROM THE OFFICE OF SENIOR ACCOUNTS
OFFICE OFFICER (COG & HS) MADHYA
PRADESH POWER GENERATING CO. SHED
NO.16 NEAR TARANG AUDITIORIUM RAMPUR
JABALPUR R/O VILLAGE AND POST KARIGOHI
DIST. SATNA (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
(BY SHRI AJEET KUMAR SINGH, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THR. ITS
SECRETARY ENERGY DEPT. VALLABH BHAWAN
BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. MANAGING DIRECTOR MP POWER
GENERATING COMPANY, SHAKTI BHAWAN
RAMPUR, DISTT. JABALPUR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
3. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (HR AND A) POWER
GENERATING COMPANY BLOCK NO.7 SHAKTI
BHAWAN, RAMPUR JABALPUR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
4. MANAGING DIRECTOR M.P. POWER
MANAGEMENT COMPANY, SHAKTI BHAWAN
RAMPUR JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
Signature Not Verified
SAN
5. SENIOR ACCOUNTS OFFICER (COG AND HS)
MADHYA PRADESH POWER GENERATING
Digitally signed by KAFEEL AHMED COMPANY CO., SHED NO. 16 NEAR TARANGA
AUDITORIUM RAMPUR JABALPUR (MADHYA
ANSARI
Date: 2022.07.22 11:11:09 IST
PRADESH)
2
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI ANOOP NAIR, ADVOCATE)
WRIT APPEAL No. 924 of 2021
Between:-
SUBODH KUMAR JAIN S/O SHRI JAGDISH
CHANDRA JAIN, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, R/O
VILL. DONGALIA TEH. MANDI DIST. KHANDWA
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
(BY SHRI AJEET KUMAR SINGH, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THR. ITS
ADDITIONAL SECRETARY ENERGY DEPT.
VALLABH BHAWAN BHOPAL (MADHYA
PRADESH)
2. S EC R ETA R Y M . P. S . E. B . , SHAKTI BHAWAN
RAMPUR JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. ADDITIONAL SECRETARY MPSEB THROUGH
S E C R E TA R Y SHAKTI BHAWAN RAMPUR
JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
4. MP POWER GENERATING CO.LTD. THROUGH
ITS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, SHAKTI BHAWAN
RAMPUR JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
5. MP POWER TRANSMISSION CO.LTD. THROUGH
ITS ADDITIONAL SECRETARY, SHAKTI
BHAWAN RAMPUR JABALPUR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
6. MP POWER MANAGEMENT CO.LTD. THROUGH
ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR SHAKTI BHAWAN
RAMPUR JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
7. CHIEF ENGINEER (HR AND A) POWER
GENERATING CO. LTD. BLOCK NO. 9 SHAKTI
BHAWAN RAMPUR JABALPUR (MADHYA
Signature Not Verified
SAN PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
Digitally signed by KAFEEL AHMED
ANSARI
Date: 2022.07.22 11:11:09 IST
(BY SHRI ANOOP NAIR, ADVOCATE)
3
These appeals coming on for hearing this day, JUSTICE SUJOY
PAUL passed the following:
ORDER
With the consent finally heard.
Regard being had to the similitude of the question involved, on the joint
request of the learned counsel for the parties, the writ appeals were analogously
heard and decided by common order.
The challenge is mounted to the orders of learned Single Judge dated
14.07.2021 whereby the learned writ court while taking assistance of its
previous findings given in W.P. No.9643/2018, dismissed the writ petition.
Shri Ajeet Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the appellants raised singular
contention. He submits that the writ petition was dismissed on the ground that
the option form to continue upto 60 years of age was not filled by the
petitioners within a period of 30 days. The 30 days period was prescribed in a
form. The two Division Benches of this Court, in clear terms held that the said
period of 30 days is not mandatory and employee is entitled to prefer option
form before attaining the age of 58 years. Thus, the order of learned Single
Judge runs contrary to the said order of Division Benches passed in W.A.
No.150/2015 dated 07.04.2015 and in W.A. No.801/2016 dated 13.07.2017. It
is further urged that the order passed by subsequent Division Bench in W.A.
No.801/2016 dated 13.07.2017 was unsuccessfully challenged by the employer
before the Apex Court. Initially interim order was granted in favour of the
employer, but ultimately SLP was dismissed. The order of Apex Court dated
18.12.2020 passed in SLP(C) No.25918/2017 is filed as Annexure P/18. Thus,
Signature Not Verified
SAN
the writ petitions were erroneously dismissed by learned Single Judge.
Digitally signed by KAFEEL AHMED
ANSARI
Shri Anoop Nair, learned counsel for the employer supported the orders
Date: 2022.07.22 11:11:09 IST
passed by learned Single Judge. However, he could not point out any
factual/legal aspect which distinguishes the case of present appellants qua the
appellants, who were party in both the writ appeals. In other words, Shri Nair
could not point out any provision which makes it obligatory for the employees
to submit option within 30 days. His reliance is also on the same provision
which became subject matter of consideration in aforesaid two writ appeals.
No other point is pressed by learned counsel for the parties.
We have heard the parties at length and perused the record.
The order passed by learned Single Judge dated 14.07.2021 is a sketchy
order. It is founded upon its previous decision passed in W.P. No.9643/2018.
A minute reading of order in W.P. No.9643/2018 also shows that learned Single
Judge has not considered the orders of writ appellate Court mentioned
hereinabove in the analysis portion of its order and merely dismissed the writ
petition on the ground that option forms were not filled within one month from
the date of communication.
In W.A. No.150/2015 (Annexure WA/4), the Division Bench on
07.04.2015 recorded as under :-
"On bare reading of the order dated
24.4.2012 (Annexure P-2), we find that no cut
off date is mentioned in the said circular.
Indeed, the form in which the option was to
be submitted as appended to the said circular
in particular the Note No.2 in the form
prescribes for one month's time to submit the
option. That period cannot be considered as
mandatory because it is only in the form of
Signature Not Verified
SAN note and not a pre-condition for eligibility
and more importantly because the Chief
Digitally signed by KAFEEL AHMED
ANSARI
Date: 2022.07.22 11:11:09 IST Engineer (Production) in his communication
dated 6.6.2012 gave further time to the
concerned employees to submit that option as
the previous application submitted by those
employees were returned back with remarks."
The another Division Bench in W.A. No.801/2016 on 13.07.2017
(Annexure P/18) held as under :-
"7. In view of the said judgment, wherein it has
been held that the time limit of one month is not
mandatory, we find that the first option given by
the appellant not to opt for extension and
subsequently withdrawing the same, before
attaining the age of 58 years, will entitle the
appellant to continue in service up to the age of 60
years."
This order of Division Bench was unsuccessfully challenged in aforesaid
SLP. Thus, we find no reason to deviate from the view taken by the previous
Division Benches. Resultantly, both the orders impugned passed by learned
Single Judge dated 14.07.2021 are set aside. The writ appeals are allowed. If
appellants submitted their options before attaining the age of 58 years, the
options shall not be rejected on the ground that the appellant had submitted the
same after one month of its communication. The appropriate decision be taken
on the options in accordance with law.
The writ appeals are allowed to the extent indicated above. If appellants
are eligible and entitled to get the benefit of option, the employer shall grant
appropriate relief to the appellants in accordance with law.
Signature Not Verified
SAN
(SUJOY PAUL) (PRAKASH CHANDRA GUPTA)
JUDGE JUDGE
Digitally signed by KAFEEL AHMED
ANSARI kafeel
Date: 2022.07.22 11:11:09 IST
