Madhya Pradesh High Court
Dr. Manohar Deolia vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 15 February, 2024
Author: Pranay Verma
Bench: Pranay Verma
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRANAY VERMA
ON THE 15 th OF FEBRUARY, 2024
WRIT PETITION No. 3667 of 2024
BETWEEN:-
DR. MANOHAR DEOLIA S/O LATE SHRI RAMNARAYAN
DEOLIA, AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
RETIRED ASSISTANT PROFESSOR HINDI, 65, MAHAVIR
MARG, NEAR DIXIT STUDIO, RAM MANDIR,
BANIYAWADI, DHAR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI PRAVEEN BAWSE - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF
HIGHER EDUCATION VALLABH BHAWAN
MANTRALAYA, BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. THE COMMISSIONER GOVERNMENT OF
MADHYA PRADESH DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER
E D U C AT I O N SATPURA BHAWAN, BHOPAL
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
( BY SHRI ANENDRA SINGH PARIHAR - PANEL LAWYER)
This petition coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
The petitioner preferred this petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India seeking following reliefs:-
"a. To call for the relevant records of the case from the
respondents.
b. To command the respondents to treat the petitioner's
deceased father to have retired from the post of Assistant
Professor in Political Science upon attaining the age of
superannuation to be 65 years i.e. w.e.f. 30.4.2016 and to
make payment of salary and allowances to the petitioner
for theperiod 31.3.2015 to 31.3.2018 by extending him
benefit of order dated 26.2.2020 (Annexure /4) issued by
Respondent No.1 and to release arrears thereof along
with interest @ 12% er annum by a writ of MANDAMUS or
any other aproriate writ, direction or order;
c. allow this petition with costs;
d. pass such other orders(s) as may be deemed
appropriate in the facts and circumstances of the case, to
grant relief to the petitioner."
At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioner referred
t h e judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Dr.
R.S.Sohane Vs. State of M.P. and Others (2019) 16 SCC 796
and submits that the controversy involved herein is no longer res-
integra and has been concluded by the Apex Court by holding that
teachers of Grant-in-aided colleges are also entitled to get the
benefit of superannuation till age of 65 years. He seeks parity vis-a-
vis the said order. He also relied upon the order dated 05.07.2022
passed i n W.P.No.11715/2022(Dr. Abdul Haleem Khan and
Others Vs. The State of M.P. and Others ) and seeks parity. He
refers the fact that the order dated 05.07.2022 as referred above
has been complied with.
Learned counsel for the respondent/State fairly submits that
petitioner stands superannuated on 31.3.2015 and the objection of
the delay, if any, raised by the Government stands negatived in
view of the order 22.08.2022 passed in Civil Appeal
No.5542/2022(Dr. Virendra Kumar Swarnkar Vs. The State of
M.P. and Others ) wherein this aspect has been dealt with in para-
5 of the said order.
Learned counsel for the petitioner opposed the prayer but
could not dispute in passing of the said order.
Considering the submissions and the facts that the
controversy involved herein has already been decided conclusively
by the Apex Court in the judgement as referred above, therefore,
this Court intends to allow the petition in view of the judgments
passed by the Apex Court and by the co-ordinate Bench of this
Court. Petitioner shall be entitled to for the benefits as enumerated
into the said judgments. However, she shall not be entitled for any
interest part because of late arrival in litigation.
Petition stands allowed and disposed of in view of the above
terms.
C. C. as per rules.
(PRANAY VERMA)
JUDGE
ns
