Madhya Pradesh High Court
Jagdish Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 9 August, 2024
Author: Milind Ramesh Phadke
Bench: Milind Ramesh Phadke
1 WP-12938-2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
ON THE 9 th OF AUGUST, 2024
WRIT PETITION No. 12938 of 2018
JAGDISH SINGH
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri D.P. Singh - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri S.S. Kushwah - Government Advocate for the State.
ORDER
The present petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India has
been filed by the petitioner seeking following reliefs:
"(i) That, the order impugned dated 24.03.2018 passed by the
Respondent No. 4 contained in Annexure P/1 may kindly be quashed
with a further direction the petitioner be allowed to remain in
employment up-to the age of 62 years by virtue of notification
Annexure - P/4 i.e. April, 2020.
(i-a) That, the impugned notification dated 19.12.2019 contained
in Annexure - P/5 issued by General Administrative Department, may
quashed, in the interest of justice.
(ii) That, the Respondents be further commanded to extend all
consequential benefits including salary from the date when the
petitioner has been retired prematurely and pay difference of salary
alongwith interest @ 15% p.a., in the interest of justice.
(iii) That, any other relief which is suitable in the facts and
2 WP-12938-2018
circumstances of the case in favour of the petitioner including the cost
throughout; may kindly be granted."
2. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner had placed reliance on
the order dated 19.07.2023 passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in Writ
Petition No.9274 of 2021 in the matter of Anil Singh Dikhit vs. State of M.P. &
Others and the order dated 17.06.2021 passed in matter of Virendra Kumar
Bhatele vs. State of M.P. [Writ Petition No.20268 of 2018] submits that the matter
is squarely covered by the aforesaid orders. He seeks parity viz-a-viz the aforesaid
orders.
3. Learned Govt. Advocate for the respondents/State could not dispute the
said fact.
4. Relevant extract of order 19.07.2023 is as under:
"7. Considering the rival submissions and the impugned order, it
appears that the impugned order only contains the reason that petitioner
did not file the petition at pre-retirement stage, said analogy cannot be
accepted because it was for the employer to implement the policy
uniformly. If petitioner got retired ignorantly and not having the
knowledge about the policy still it was the respondents who had to
apply the effect of policy uniformly.
8. When in the case of Brigank Mohan Mishra (supra), the
Coordinate Bench has specifically held on the basis of the judgment of
Apex Court in the case of Ram Naresh Rawat (supra) and does not find
any dispute between Class -III and Class -IV as no reasonable
classification exists according to the Coordinate Bench, then it is the
duty of the respondents to implement it in letter and spirit. It appears
3 WP-12938-2018
that the said order attained finality.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has rightly placed the order
dated 08-03-2022 passed in Writ Appeal No.1533/2019 (State of
Madhya Pradesh & Ors. Vs. Ravindra Singh Solanki) in which
Division Bench of this Court has categorically held in same spirit as
referred above. Once the policy decision has been taken by the State
Government for raising the age of superannuation then the benefit
should be accorded to the persons equally and not on the basis of pick
and choose.
10. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in the wake of
different judgments passed by the Coordinate Bench as well as Division
Bench of this Court, respondents have erroneously passed the
impugned order. Therefore, the impugned order dated 22-04-2021
Annexure P/1 is hereby set aside.
11. At this stage, it appears that petitioner must have been retired
because in 2021 his age has been referred as 61 years and if petitioner
is in service then he shall be allowed to continue till 62 years/till the
age of retirement prescribed for such employee else petitioner shall be
entitled for retirement benefit in accordance with law as if he has been
retired after attaining the age of 62 years. If petitioner is retired and has
not worked during that period, then for this period on the principle of
No Work No Pay he shall not be entitled for any salary.
12. Petition stands allowed and disposed of in above terms."
5. The order dated 19.07.2023 later on has modified by the Division
Bench of this Court which is as under:
4 WP-12938-2018
"5. Appellant has suddenly been retired from service at the age of
61 years, whereas for him the retirement age is 62 years. It is the case
where appellant is willing and ready to serve the department but by
way of wrong action, he has been retired before attaining the age of
retirement. Therefore, no fault on the part of the appellant. Hence, he
cannot be denied the salary of that intervening period.
6. In view of the above, order of writ court dated 19.07.2023
passed in W.P.No.9274/2021 is hereby modified to the extent that
respondents are directed to grant the salary of the appellant upto the age
of 62 years from the date of retirement.
7. Remaining part of the order shall remain intact.
8. With the aforesaid, the present writ appeal is hereby allowed."
6. Relevant extract of order 17.06.2021 is as under:
"From the perusal of the aforesaid circular, it is seen that the
same is applicable from the date of issuance. But the fact remains that it
has been held by this Court in series of the judgments that the daily-
rated employee is entitled to continue upto 62 years. The aforesaid
judgment was followed subsequently as has further been upheld by this
Court in the case of Anil Singh Dikhit Vs. State of M.P. dated
16.02.2021 in W.P.No.23156/2019.
In such circumstances, learned Govt. Advocate for the State
could not dispute the aforesaid preposition but has only submitted that
the reply has been filed in the matter and the Court may decide the case
in accordance with the reply. But it is not disputed that the daily wages
employee is entitled to continue upto 62 years of age. In such
5 WP-12938-2018
circumstances, the petitioner who is admittedly working on the post of
daily rated employee. Even if it is assumed that he is discharging his
duties as Class-III then he is also entitled to continue upto 62 years as
has been held by the Coordinate Bench at Indore in the case of Brigank
Mohan Mishra (supra). In such circumstances, the order impugned
dated 31.07.2018 (Annexure P/1) retiring the petitioner on attaining the
age of superannuation as 60 years is hereby quashed. The petitioner is
directed to continue upto 62 years.
Accordingly, the petition is allowed."
7. In view of the aforesaid, the present petition stands allowed and
disposed of in the manner as directed by this Court in cases of Anil Singh Dikhit
vs. State of M.P. ( supra) and Virendra Kumar Bhatele vs. State of M.P. ( supra)
that order shall apply mutatis mutandis in the present case order.
8. Certified copy as per Rules/Directions.
(MILIND RAMESH PHADKE)
JUDGE
pwn*
