Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Pramila Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 2 May, 2022
Author: Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI
ON THE 2nd OF MAY, 2022
WRIT PETITION No. 7922 of 2022
Between:-
SMT. PRAMILA SINGH W/O LATE SHRI VINOD
KUMAR , AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
HOUSE WIFE F-604 SHREE KRISHNA HEIGHTS
KATRA HILLS BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI ABHAY PANDEY, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE
PETITIONER)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH THE
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY VALLABH BHAWAN
BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. COMMISSIONER HIGHER EDUCATION
DEPARTMENT SATPURA BHAWAN BHOPAL M.P.
(MADHYA PRADESH)
3. EDUCATION OFFICER/PRINCIPAL GOVERNMENT
MODEL SCIENCE COLLEGE REWA DISTRICT
REWA (M.P.) (MADHYA PRADESH)
4. PRINCIPAL NEHRU SMARAK COLLEGE
CHAKGAHT DISTRICT REWA (M.P.) (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI LALIT JOGLEKAR, LEARNED GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE
FOR THE RESPONDENTS/STATE)
This petition coming on for admission and I.R. this day, the court passed
the following:
ORDER
The present petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India seeking following reliefs:
"7.1 That, it is therefore, prayed that Hon'ble Court may
kindly be pleased to issue a writ of Mandamus direction to the
respondents to grant the full salary and allowance of Late Vinod
Signature Not Verified
Kumar, Assistant Professor, Nehru Smarak College, Chakghat,
SAN
Digitally signed by VINAY KUMAR
District Rewa (M.P.) for the period from 01.08.211 to 31.07.2014, in
BURMAN
Date: 2022.05.05 12:48:35 IST
the interest of justice.
7.2 That, it is therefore, prayed that Hon'ble Court may
kindly be pleased to issue a writ of Mandamus direction to the
respondents to consider and decide the representation (Annexure P/6)
in the light of Jai Gopal Dwivedi in W.P.No.1409/2020 and Dr. R.S.
Sohane in W.P.No.18001/2020 decided on 16.02.2022 (Annexure
P/4 & P/5), in the interest of justice.
7.3 Any other relief deems fit may also be granted
including cost litigation."
Brief facts leading to filing of this case are that the husband of the petitioner
was initially appointed on the post Lecturer (Grade-I), Nehru Smarak College,
Chakghat, District Rewa. He was promoted to the post of Assistant Professor vide
order dated 16.07.2011, the respondents/authority ordered for retirement of late
husband Vinod Kumar on 31.07.2011. He had challenged the said order in
W.P.No.8885/2011. The said writ petition was dismissed vide order dated
17.11.2016. Due to illness, the husband could not challenge the order dated
17.11.2016 in writ appeal. Late Vinod Kumar was receiving pension. He died on
25.09.2020 due to illness. The family i.e. petitioner started receiving family pension.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that though the issue with
regard to superannuation at the age of 62 or 65 years has been decided by the
Apex Court, in which it is held that the employees like the petitioner are eligible to
continue up to the age of 65 years. Since, the petition was dismissed holding that
the petitioner has been rightly superannuated on attaining the age of 62 years, the
husband of the petitioner cannot challenge the order in writ appeal or approach the
Supreme Court for that purpose. Since, similarly situated employees have been
continued up to the age of 65 years and have received all the monetary benefits,
therefore, the petitioner is also entitled for the salary for the period from
01.08.2011 to 31.07.2014.
The petitioner relied on the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case
of Dr. R.S. Sohane Vs. State of M.P. and others, (2019)16 SCC 796 wherein it
Signature Not Verified
SAN
has been held that the petitioners therein are entitled to continue up to the age of 65
Digitally signed by VINAY KUMAR
BURMAN
Date: 2022.05.05 12:48:35 IST
years and also entitled for payment of salary for the intervening period. Being
aggrieved, the petitioner has filed present writ petition.
On the other hand, learned Government Advocate for the respondents/State
opposed the prayer vehemently and submitted that the judgement passed by the
Apex Court is not in rem therefore the same cannot be made applicable to the facts
and circumstances of the case. Moreover, the writ petition of the husband of the
petitioner was dismissed by the Coordinate Bench on 17.11.2016, and, therefore
the petitioner was made to superannuate on attaining the age of 62 years.
Thereafter, the husband of the petitioner did not choose to challenge the same in
writ appeal, meaning thereby, the order passed in writ petition had attained finality.
In view of the aforesaid, the wife of the deceased employee is estopped
from filing the second writ petition for the same purpose. The only option available
to the petitioner was to assail the order dated 17.11.2016 in writ appeal, if so
advised in accordance with law. No writ/direction can be issued at this stage when
the issued in respect of the deceased husband of the petitioner is already settled,
petition deserves to be dismissed.
Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
This Court finds force in the submissions of the learned counsel for the
respondents. The Coordinate Bench of this Court had disposed of
W.P.No.8885/2011 vide order dated 17.11.2016 and the following order was
passed:-
"In this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, the
petitioner has prayed for a direction to permit him to serve the
department till he completes the age of 65 years.
2. Learned counsel for the parties during the course of
arguments fairly submits that the point involved in this case has already
been decided by Gwalior Bench of this Court in the case of Dr. Dinesh
Chandra Mishra vs. State of M.P. and others passed in WP.
No.5168/12 and other connected matters. They also agreed that the
said order of Gwalior Bench is followed by Principal Seat at Jabalpur
Signature Not Verified
and Indore Bench of this Court.
SAN
Digitally signed by VINAY KUMAR
3. It is apt to quote the Para 15 of the judgment of Gwalior
BURMAN
Date: 2022.05.05 12:48:35 IST
Bench in Dinesh Chandra Mishra (supra), which reads as under:
“15. It is clear that despite finding in paras 21 and 79
of the judgment of Jagdish Prasad Sharma (supra),the fact
remains that SLPs filed by State Government against the orders
passed in Y.P.Singh and other connected matters are allowed.
Hence, the present petitioners, who have almost advanced
similar contentions, cannot succeed. So far the contention
regarding salary for the services already W.P. No. 8885 of 2011
rendered is concerned, in my view, the petitioners deserve this
benefit. In para 80 of Jagdish Prasad Sharma (supra), the Apex
Court opined that“persons who have continued to work on the
basis of interim orders of the Court, shall not be denied the
benefit of services during the said periodâ€. Accordingly, those
petitioners, who have worked because of interim order of this
Court and retired, shall be entitled to get salary for the services
rendered by them. This payment (if not already made) shall be
made within ninety days from the date of production of this
order.â€
4. In the light of this judgment, no relief is due to the
petitioner.
5. The petition is accordingly dismissed. No cost."
In view of the aforesaid, the issue is no more res integra. The husband did
not choose to file writ appeal against the order of learned Single Judge meaning
thereby the same has attained finality. In such circumstances, this Court cannot
issue fresh directions to consider the representation of the petitioner in the light of
the Dr. R.S. Sohane (supra).
The petition, being bereft of merits and substance, is hereby dismissed at
the admission stage itself.
Signature Not Verified
SAN
(S. A. DHARMADHIKARI)
JUDGE
vinay*
Digitally signed by VINAY KUMAR
BURMAN
Date: 2022.05.05 12:48:35 IST
