Kishorilal Rathore vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh Public ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 3344 MP

                                                     1
                  IN       THE     HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                         AT INDORE
                                             BEFORE
                                 HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA
                                    ON THE 23 rd OF FEBRUARY, 2023
                                        WRIT PETITION No. 2824 of 2023

                BETWEEN:-
                KISHORILAL RATHORE S/O KANHAIYALAL, AGED
                ABOUT 68 YEARS, OCCUPATION: RETIRED (HELPER)
                38/A VENETATESHWAR NAGAR, AERODRUM ROAD,
                INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                               .....PETITIONER
                (SHRI YASH AGRAWAL, ADVOCATE)

                AND
                1.        THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH PUBLIC
                          HEALTH     ENGINEERING    DEPARTMENT
                          SECRETARY VALLABH    BHAWAN   BHOPAL
                          (MADHYA PRADESH)

                2.        ENGINEER    IN     CHIEF PUBLIC HEALTH
                          ENGINEERING    DEPARTMENT JAL BHAWAN,
                          BANGANGA, BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

                3.        CHIEF ENGINEER PUBLIC HEALTH ENGINEERING
                          DEPARTM ENT INDORE DIVISION, TUKOGANJ,
                          INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)

                4.        EXECUTIVE      ENGINEER PUBLIC   HEALTH
                          ENGINEERING        DEPARTMENT DIVISION-2,
                          MUSAKHEDI, INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)

                5.        JOINT DIRECTOR TREASURY AND ACCOUNTS
                          INDORE DIVISION, INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                            .....RESPONDENTS
                ( SHRI AMAY BAJAJ GOVT.ADVOCATE)

Signature Not VerifiedT h is petition    coming on for orders this day, t h e cou rt passed the
Signed by: REENA
PARTHO SARKAR
               following:
Signing time: 2/24/2023
2:59:33 PM
                                                      ORDER

By way of present Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is challenging the impugned action of the respondents by way of which representation for counting his past service as qualifying service for pensionary benefits has not been considered. It is submitted that petitioner was appointed at post of Helper as daily wager on 01.12.1981 and in work charged establishment vide order dated 18.03.1991 and later on absorbed in regular establishment. However, upon his retirement, the services rendered in work charged establishment has not been taken into account as qualifying service. Therefore a period of 6 years has been left by Respondent in qualifying service, as a result of which petitioner is getting lesser

pay of pension and other pensionary benefits.

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that under similar circumstances, the Hon'ble High court has decided case of similarly situated employees and directed the state government to decide representation of the petitioner in light of Judgment passed in case of Sudama Prasad Pandey Vs. State of MP in WP 16878/2010 as well as Judgment of Apex Court in case of Netram Sahu Vs. State of Chhattisgarh in Crl. Appeal No.1254/2018 decided on 23.03.2018.

After retirement the petitioner is regularly making representations to the respondents but none of them have been answered nor decided by the respondents, hence, the present petition before this Court.

Before entertaining the petition on merits, it would be proper to direct the respondents to consider the pending representations of the petitioner in light of Judgment passed in case of Sudama Prasad Pandey Vs. State of MP in Signature Not Verified Signed by: REENA PARTHO SARKAR WP 16878/2010. The respondents are also directed to examine whether Signing time: 2/24/2023 2:59:33 PM similarly placed persons have been granted the benefit of pension.

In view of the above, the petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to decide the pending representation of the petitioner within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

Needless to say, in case the representation of the petitioner is allowed then the benefit may be extended to him forthwith and in case of rejection, then a reasoned and speaking order be passed in accordance with law.

(VIVEK RUSIA) JUDGE das

Signature Not Verified Signed by: REENA PARTHO SARKAR Signing time: 2/24/2023 2:59:33 PM