Madhya Pradesh High Court
Dr. Ravindra Kumar Nagle vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 31 March, 2023
Author: Vivek Agarwal
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWAL
ON THE 31 st OF MARCH, 2023
WRIT PETITION No. 10379 of 2021
BETWEEN:-
1. DR. RAVINDRA KUMAR NAGLE S/O SHRI G.L.
NAGLE, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
VETERINARY ASSISTANT SURGEON VETERINARY
HOSPITAL SINGODI DISTT. CHHINDWARA
(MADHYA PRADESH)
2. DR. SHIVRAM JHARIYA S/O SHRI D.P. JHARIYA,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
VETERINARY ASSTT. SURGEON, VETERINARI
HOSPITAL GHANSOUR, DISTT. SEONI (MADHYA
PRADESH)
3. DR. SUDHIR KUMAR PATLEY S/O SHRI K.R.
PATLEY, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
VETERINARY ASSTT. SURGEON, VETERINARY
HOSPITAL SHYAMPUR, DISTT. SEHORE (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....PETITIONERS
(BY SHRI Y.M. TIWARI - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THR.
SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF ANIMAL
HUSBANDRY/ VETERINARY MANTRALAYA
VALLABH BHAWAN BHOPAL MP (MADHYA
PRADESH)
2. UNDER SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF ANIMAL
H U S B A N D A R Y/ V E T E R I N A R Y MANTRALAYA
VALLABH BHAWAN BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. D I R E C T O R , DIRECTORATE OF ANIMAL
Signature Not Verified
SAN
HUSBANDRY/ VETERINARY, GOVT. OF M.P.
BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
Digitally signed by TULSA SINGH
Date: 2023.04.06 19:33:06 IST
.....RESPONDENTS
2
(BY SHRI SHIV KUMAR SHRIVASTAVA - GOVT. ADVOCATE)
This petition coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
This petition is filed claiming the benefits of M.P. Civil Services
(Pension) Rules, 1976 on the ground that an advertisement was issued by the
respondents for appointment to the post of Assistant Veterinary Surgeon on
02/10/2003. Petitioners had participated in the selection process and their
results were declared by the M.P. Public Service Commission on 11/08/2004.
Petitioners' case is that Government of Madhya Pradesh had issued a
circular dated 13/4/2005 stating therein that employees appointed on or after
01/01/2005 will be governed by the contributory pension scheme and
provisions of M.P. Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 will not be applicable
to them. Admittedly, petitioner No.1 was given appointment order on
30/08/2005 whereas petitioners No.2 and 3 were given appointment order on
14/10/2005 but as the process for recruitment was initiated prior to issuance of
circular dated 13/04/2005, therefore, petitioners are entitled to benefit of
provisions contained in the M.P. Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976.
Reliance is place on the decision of Delhi High Court in the case of
Inspector Rajendra Singh and others Vs. Union of India and others
decided on 27th March, 2017 in W.P. (C) No.2810/2016 . Reliance is also
placed on the judgment of M.R. Gupta Vs. Union of India and others,
(1995) 5 SCC 628.
Shri Shiv Kumar Shrivastava, learned Govt. Advocate, in his turn,
Signature Not Verified
SAN submits petitioners' appointment orders are subsequent to issuance of
Digitally signed by TULSA SINGH
Date: 2023.04.06 19:33:06 IST Government circular dated 13th April, 2005. This circular clearly provides that
benefit of Pension Rules, 1976 will not be applicable to any civil servant
appointed on or after 01/01/2005. It is submitted that word used in the circular
is 'appointment' and not initiation of recruitment process.
This issue has been dealt with by High Court of Allahabad in the case of
Sundar Pal Singh Vs. District Inspector of School and three others in
Writ A. No.6594/2020 decided on 31/08/2020 wherein High Court of
Allahabad has held that as per the law laid down by Supreme Court in Tagin
Litin Vs. State of Arunachal Pradesh and others, (1996) 5 SCC 83, there
is no vested right in a candidate to get appointment upon selection and the rules
and regulations applicable to a service as on the date of joining will be
applicable.
Similarly, Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Anupal Singh and
others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, through Principal Secretary,
Personnel Department and others, (2020) 2 SCC 173 has held that
petitioner is not entitled to relief of application of old pension scheme to him
and his case will have to be governed by the new pension scheme, since new
pension had come into effect on the date of the petitioner, the same will be
applicable and not the old pension scheme. Judgment in the case of M.R.
Gupta (supra), has no application to the facts of the present case inasmuch as
i.e. a case in regard to pay fixation and payment of arrears of pay and not on
the aspect of admissibility of a pension on a particular cutoff date.
The judgment of Delhi High Court as relied by the petitioners' counsel in
the case of Inspector Rajendra Singh and others (supra) is distinguishable
on its own facts. In that case appointment orders were issued in favour of
Signature Not Verified
SAN
other persons who had appeared in the examination prior to the cutoff date and
Digitally signed by TULSA SINGH
Date: 2023.04.06 19:33:06 IST
they were given joining orders by 22nd December, 2003. But, in the case of
the petitioners therein, they were declared medically unfit and were directed to
appear before the Review Medical Board. They were declared medically fit by
the Review Medical Board when letters were issued to them on 17/03/2004
calling them to appear for interview before the Staff Selection Commission on
22/4/2004. Finally, they were issued joining letters in March, 2005 after delay of
another eleven months. Taking these facts into consideration and the fact that
delay in issuance of appointment letters was on account of pendency of series
of formalities like appearance before the Review Medical Board, Review
Medical Board giving a certificate of fitness and then calling them for interview
and then not issuing appointment orders for long eleven months, were the
differentiating circumstances which are not available in the present case.
Accordingly, the decision of Delhi High Court is distinguishable on its own
facts and not applicable to the facts of the present case.
Accordingly, writ petition being devoid of merit, deserves to be
dismissed and is hereby dismissed.
(VIVEK AGARWAL)
JUDGE
ts
Signature Not Verified
SAN
Digitally signed by TULSA SINGH
Date: 2023.04.06 19:33:06 IST
