Madhya Pradesh High Court
Lal Singh Jayant vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 29 March, 2022
Author: Anand Pathak
1
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
BENCH AT GWALIOR
DIVISION BENCH
(Sheel Nagu & Anand Pathak, J.J.)
W.A.No.850/2021
Lal Singh Jayant Vs. State of M.P. and Ors.
Shri Anvesh Jain, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Ajay Raghuvanshi, learned Government Advocate for
respondents/State.
***********
JUDGMENT
[Delivered on this 29th day of March, 2022]
Per Justice Anand Pathak, J.
The present appeal under Section 2(1) of Madhya Pradesh
Uchcha Nyayalay (Khand Nyay Peeth Ko Appeal), Adhiniyam, 2005
arising out of the order dated 09.04.2021 passed in Writ Petition
No.9365/2019 by learned Writ Court whereby petition preferred by the
petitioner has been disposed of.
2. It is the submission of counsel for the appellant that in the case
in hand learned writ Court has partly allowed the petition with certain
directions but the benefits to be given as per the judgment of Division
Bench of this Court in the case of Salil Kumar Saxena Vs. State of
M.P. and Anr. passed in Writ Appeal No.271/2020 has not been
accorded, therefore, this writ appeal has been preferred.
3. As submitted, petitioner is working as Senior Assistant in M.P.
Warehousing & Logistics Corporation and he was to be retired after
attaining the age of 60 years initially on 31.01.2019 but meanwhile,
Government of M.P. by issuing ordinance No.4 of 2018 on 31.03.2018
amended FR 56 by substituting word "62 years" in place of "60 years"
therefore, age of superannuation of Cadre of Class-1, II and III
employees were extended to 62 years. Therefore, he is seeking benefits
just like other employee of same corporation, Salil Kumar Saxena who
preferred a writ petition which was dismissed earlier by learned writ
Court vide order dated 09.04.2019 passed in W.P.No.3742/2019 and
writ appeal was preferred in which vide judgment dated 08.02.2021 in
W.A.No.271/2020 benefits have been accorded and he has been given
benefit to be superannuated till completion of 62 years of age. Other
consequential, monetary and pensionary benefits have also been
accorded to him.
4. Learned counsel for respondents/State could not dispute the
passing of said order although opposed the prayer.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the
documents appended thereto.
6. This is the case where petitioner is seeking following reliefs:-
1. That, the impugned order contained in
Annexure P/1 and P/3 may kindly be quashed with
all consequential effects directing the respondents
to extend all the benefits of the post of Senior
Assistant to the petitioner including monetary
benefits treating the petitioner continuous in
service upto completion of 62 years of age.
2. The cost of the petition be awarded to the
petitioner.
3. Any other order or directions deemed fit in
the circumstances of the case be issued in favour of
the petitioner.
7. In the case of Salil Kumar Saxena, this Court has discussed the
controversy in following manner:-
This is the case where appellant/petitioner is seeking
redressal of the grievance whereby he was
superannuated after attainment of 60 years of age
whereas Regulation 13 of Madhya Pradesh State
Warehousing Corporation Staff Regulation, 1962
mandates in categorical terms that it would be
applicable mutatis mutandis as per State Government
Policies. Amended portion of the policy is reproduced for
ready reference. It reads as under:-
"Compulsory Retirement Age Rules,
1967, Amended Rules, 1972 as framed by the
State Government and the State Government
policies as in force from time to time in respect
of the age of superannuation/retirement shall
be applicable to the corporation's employee's"
Said aspect has been considered by the Single Bench
of this Court (Supra) and thereafter, Division Bench has
affirmed the same, order of which is on record and
respondent could not dispute the passing of the said order
as well as its application over the employees. Although
respondent No.2 tried to make submissions in this regard,
but could not produce any order of Hon'ble Apex Court or
make out any distinction in respect of service conditions of
present appellant. For brevity, the observations as
contained in order of learned Single Judge or learned
Division Bench respectively are not reproduced, but this
court intends to tread on the same path charted out by the
learned Single as well as Division Bench of this court in
earlier litigation.
In the present case, respondents corporation has
wrongly interpreted the amended Rule 13 of Rules of the
Madhya Pradesh State Warehousing Corporation Staff
Regulation, 1962 and denied the legitimate claim to the
petitioner, therefore, as per the law laid down by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India Vs. K.V.
Jankiraman reported in AIR 1991 SC 2010 as well as
judgment of Apex Court in the case of State of Kerela and
others Vs. E.K. Bhaskaran Pillai reported in 2007 SCC
524 where it has been held that if administration wrongly
denies the dues of an employee then in that case he should
be given full benefits including monetary benefits subject to
there being any change in law and some other supervening
factors and according to the Hon'ble Apex Court principle
"No work no pay" cannot be accepted as the rule of
thumb, therefore, in the considered opinion of this court,
petitioner was denied his legitimate claims by non-
application of already existing rule or misinterpretation of
it. Petitioner is entitled for back-wages for the period
wherein he was denied work by the respondents on illegal
pretext. Division Bench of this court in the case of Madhya
Pradesh Madhya Kshetra Vidyut Vitran Company Ltd.
Vs. Ajit Kumar Singh (Dead) through LRs Smt. Shiva
Patel decided on 09.02.2017 in Writ Appeal No.400/2016
has already accepted the said principle.
In view of the above, order impugned deserves to be modified to
some extent.
8. Resultantly, appeal of the appellant stands allowed and age of
superannuation of appellant is also to be treated as 62 years. Since the
appellant/petitioner was denied opportunity to work till 62 years of age
whereas he ought to have been allowed because of amended Rule 13,
therefore, he is entitled for back-wages while treating him in
continuous service. Since appellant / petitioner was apparently likely
to be superannuated in January, 2021, therefore, respondents are
directed to treat the appellant as reinstated forthwith and appellant
shall be entitled for all service benefits by way of consequential
benefits including monetary benefits / pensionary benefits accrued to
him in accordance with law while treating him in continuous service
up to 62 years of age.
9. Appeal stands allowed and disposed of in above terms.
(Sheel Nagu) (Anand Pathak)
Ashish* Judge Judge
29/03/2022 29/03/2022
ASHIS Digitally signed by ASHISH
CHAURASIA
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF
H
MADHYA PRADESH BENCH
GWALIOR, ou=HIGH COURT OF
MADHYA PRADESH BENCH
GWALIOR, postalCode=474001,
st=Madhya Pradesh,
2.5.4.20=bf81a9adb1da24e4bc7b519
CHAU
5154c3d4de08c6bb9303e52e2e7e72
8d9bac85bd3,
pseudonym=CA2EA6EDDF504F8F9C
2790FA9A0FD201D0242B64,
serialNumber=A926F3CBF979ECA6A
4C477577EEDBA3AB4F94593A930B9
RASIA
8DAE1B0AD16F90B5FD, cn=ASHISH
CHAURASIA
Date: 2022.03.30 11:00:28 -07'00'
