Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ramswaroop vs Water Resources Department on 11 October, 2023
Author: Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRANAY VERMA
ON THE 11 th OF OCTOBER, 2023
WRIT APPEAL No. 1511 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
RAMSWAROOP S/O RAMPRASAD, AGED ABOUT 62
YEARS, OCCUPATION: RETIRED R/O SUDAMA NAGAR
AGAR ROAD UJJAIN (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
(MS RACHANA ZAMINDAR, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT)
AND
1. WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT SECRETARY
VALLABH BHAWAN, BHOPAL (MADHYA
PRADESH)
2. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER LIGHT MACHINERY AND
VIDHYUT SAMBHAG, DHAR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
( SHRI SHREY RAJ SAXENA, DY. ADVOCATE GENERAL FOR THE
RESPONDENTS/STATE)
This appeal coming on for admission this day, Justice Sushrut Arvind
Dharmadhikari passed the following:
ORDER
This writ appeal under Section 2(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Uccha
Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 has been filed being
aggrieved by the order dated 12.07.2023 passed by learned Single Judge in Writ
Petition No. 13692/2019.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SEHAR HASEEN
Signing time: 10/12/2023
6:10:33 PM
2. The appellant was initially appointed as daily rated employee on the
post of Muster Clerk. Vide order dated 31.01.2017, he was given the status of
permanent employee and paid the minimum pay scale w.e.f. 01.09.2016. The
Government of M.P. vide notification dated 31.03.2018 has amended the
Madhya Pradesh Shaskiya Sewak Adhivarshiki Aayu Adhiniyam, 1967(referred
to as the 'Act of 1967') by increasing the age of superannuation from 60 years
to 62 years and as per the said circular appellant is also entitled to get
superannuated on attaining the age of 62 years. However,
respondent/department vide order dated 03.06.2019 superannuated the appellant
w.e.f. 31.07.2019 while attaining the age of 60 years. Appellant thereafter filed a
writ petition in which the learned Single Judge while rejecting the prayer for
interim relief has observed that if the appellant succeeds in the petition,
appropriate order compensating him on monetary terms can be passed. The
writ petition filed by the appellant finally came to be decided vide the order
dated 12.07.2023 wherein following observation has been made:
"[7] Once the employee has been given the permanent status and fixed
in a pay-scale, therefore, he is not liable to be treated as daily rated employee.
To remove the status of daily rated employee, the Government came up with
the circular dated 07.10.2016 to grant them a permanent status and fix them in
a minimum pay-scale as per their category. They are no more daily rated
employees, resultantly, the petitioner has wrongly been retired at the age of 60
years, he was entitled to continue up to the age of 62 years.
[8] Vide order dated 17.07.2019, this Court declined to grant of interim
relief to the petitioner hence, he retired at the age of 60 years, however, the
Court has observed that if the petitioner finally succeeds in the petition, then,
appropriate order compensating the petitioner on monetary terms can be
passed. Since the petitioner did not work from 60 years to 62 years of age
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SEHAR HASEEN
Signing time: 10/12/2023
6:10:33 PM
although he was ready to work but under the principle of no work no wages, no
salary can granted to the petitioner from 60 years to 62 years of age however,
this service is liable to be counted for other pensionary benefits.
With the aforesaid, present petition is allowed."
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that while rejecting the
interim relief, learned Single Judge assured that back wages could not have been
denied. In the light of the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of
Hindustan Tin Works Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Employees of Hindustan Tin Works
reported in 1979 AIR 75 appellant is entitled for full back wages. Learned
Single Judge failed in not considering the order dated 17.07.2019 whereby it has
been observed that monetary compensation would be decided while passing the
final order with further observation that appellant is willing to work even after
attaining the age of superannuation. Hence, the two years should be included
while computing pensionary and other consequential benefits. Co-ordinate
Bench of this Court has passed orders in W.P. No. 8869/2019 and W.P. No.
16586/2019 wherein while setting aside the orders superannuating the similarly
situated employees on attaining the age of 60 years, they are allowed to work
upto the age of 62 years. For no mistake on the part of the appellant, he is made
to suffer. Hence, petition may be allowed and the impugned order dated
12.07.2023 be modified.
4 . On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/State
supported the order impugned.
5. We have heard, learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record.
6 . Admittedly, appellant had been given the status of permanent
employee vide order dated 31.01.2017 and granted the pay scale of a permanent
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SEHAR HASEEN
Signing time: 10/12/2023
6:10:33 PM
employee, i.e. prior to issuance of the circular dated 03.05.2017. Therefore,
appellant was entitled to work upto the age of 62 years. However, he was
superannuated on attaining the age of 60 years on 31.07.2019.
7. Learned Single Judge while allowing the writ petition had come to
the conclusion that appellant was wrongly superannuated at the age of 60 years
and he was entitled to continue upto the age of 62 years. In such a situation, the
learned Single Judge erred in not granting salary for the period of 02 years on
the principle of 'no work no pay'
8. For no fault on the part of the appellant, he was deprived of
monetary benefits for two years following the principle of 'no work no pay'.
However he was ready and willing to do the work till attaining the age of
superannuation i.e. 62 years.
9. In view of the aforesaid, the impugned order passed by the learned
Single Judge dated 12.07.2023 is hereby modified to the extent that
respondents are further directed to extend the benefit of back wages for the
period of two years from the date of retirement i.e. 31.07.2019 with other
consequential benefits.
10. The writ appeal stands disposed off with the aforesaid modification.
(S. A. DHARMADHIKARI) (PRANAY VERMA)
JUDGE JUDGE
sh
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SEHAR HASEEN
Signing time: 10/12/2023
6:10:33 PM
