Madhya Pradesh High Court
Mahesh Kumar Choudhary vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 7 February, 2023
Author: Pranay Verma
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRANAY VERMA
ON THE 7 th OF FEBRUARY, 2023
REVIEW PETITION No. 464 of 2021
BETWEEN:-
MAHESH KUMAR CHOUDHARY S/O BIHARILAL, AGED
ABOUT 62 YEARS, OCCUPATION: SERVICE M-TYPE 27,
GANDHINAGAR COLONY NO. 8, TEH. BHANPURA
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(SHRI KARPE PRAKHAR MOHAN - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THR.
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY VALLABH BHAWAN
BHOPAL (M.P.) (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. THE STATE OF M.P. THR. CHIEF ENGINEER
WATER RESOURCE DEPARTMENT NARMADA
TAPTI BASIN. OLD PALASIA (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. THE STATE OF M.P. THR. EXECUTIVE EINGEER
GANDHI SAGAR BANDH DIVISION TEH.
BHANPURA. DIST. MANDSAUR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
( SHRI KOUSTUBH PATHAK - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)
T h is petition coming on for order this day, t h e cou rt passed the
following:
ORDER
1. This petition has been filed for review/modification of order dated
01.07.2019 passed in Writ petition No. 29330 of 2018.
2. The aforesaid petition was allowed in the following terms :-
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RASHMI
PRASHANT
Signing time: 08-Feb-23
11:55:30 AM
"5. Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties and the
judgment rendered by the co-ordinate Bench, this Court finds
substantial force in the submission so advanced by learned counsel
for the petitioner. Once this Court ruled that class III employees in
public employment of the State of Madhya Pradesh are entitled to
serve upto the age of 62 years, therefore, irrespective of the fact that
petitioner was made to retire at the age of 60 years i.e. on
31/08/2018 after coming into force the amendment, the petitioner
is held entitled to serve upto the age of 62 years i.e. 31/08/2020.
Consequently, the impugned order dated 29/10/2018 is quashed
and the petitioner shall be reinstated in service and allowed to
perform duties till he reaches the age of 62 years i.e. 31/08/2020
with all consequential benefits. It is ordered accordingly."
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though there was a
direction in the order for payment of all consequential benefits to the petitioner
but respondents are not granting him the arrears of salary for the period from
30.10.2018 to 08.07.2019 on the ground that there is no specific direction by
this Court to the said effect. It is submitted that all consequential benefits
would include the aforesaid arrears of salary also hence the order be suitably
clarified/modified.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent State has opposed the prayer and
has submitted that the order is quite clear and does not require any
modification/clarification.
5. Having considered the order dated 01.07.2019 passed in Writ Petition
No. 29330 of 2018 it is seen that there was a clear direction therein to grant all
Signature Not Verified
consequential benefits to the petitioner. That would include arrears of salary for
Signed by: RASHMI
PRASHANT
Signing time: 08-Feb-23
11:55:30 AM
the period from 30.10.2018 to 08.07.2019 also and merely for the reason that
the same was not specifically mentioned in the order, the petitioner cannot be
deprived of the same.
6. The order dated 01.07.2019 passed in Writ Petition No. 29330 of
2018 is clarified to the effect that "all consequential benefits" as mentioned
therein would also include arrears of salary for the period from 30.10.2018 to
08.07.2019 which have not been granted to the petitioner.
With the aforesaid direction, petition stands disposed off.
(PRANAY VERMA)
JUDGE
rashmi
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RASHMI
PRASHANT
Signing time: 08-Feb-23
11:55:30 AM
