Sheelchandra Kailashi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2024 Latest Caselaw 4386 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Sheelchandra Kailashi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 15 February, 2024

Author: Vivek Rusia

Bench: Vivek Rusia

                                1
 IN    THE       HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                       AT INDORE
                           BEFORE
               HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA
                  ON THE 15 th OF FEBRUARY, 2024
                   WRIT PETITION No. 2112 of 2024

BETWEEN:-
SHEELCHANDRA KAILASHI S/O SHRI B.L. JAIN, AGED
ABOUT 81 YEARS, OCCUPATION: PENSIONER 6/572,
VISHNUPURA, MADHAV CLUB ROAD, FREEGANJ,
UJJAIN (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                           .....PETITIONER
(ROHIT SINNARKAR, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER [P-1].
)

AND
1.    THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL
      SECRETARY HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT
      VALLABH BHAWAN BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

2.    THE    COMMISSIONER HIGHER EDUCATION
      D EPARTM EN T GOVERNMENT OF MADHYA
      PRADESH, SATPURA BHAWAN, BHOPAL (MADHYA
      PRADESH)

3.    VIKRAM VISHWAVIDHYALAYA THROUGH THE
      R E G I S T R A R VIKRAM VISHWAVIDHYALAYA,
      UJJAIN (MADHYA PRADESH)

4.    THE ALLAHABAD BANK THROUGH THE BRANCH
      M ANAGER ARERA COLONY BRANCH, BHOPAL
      (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                        .....RESPONDENTS
(SHRI KUSHAL GOYAL, LEARNED DY. ADVOCATE GENERAL FOR THE
RESPONDENTS/STATE ON ADVANCE COPY.)

      This petition coming on for hearing on admission this day, th e court
passed the following:
                                 ORDER

01. The petitioner has filed the present petition seeking direction to the respondents for payment of arrears of revised pension w.e.f. 01.09.2008 to 31.03.2014 in light of judgment passed by this Court in W.P. No.8242/2012. The petitioner was employed with respondent No.3 and retired from service on 31.12.2003. He was getting pension @ 8457/- per month. In the year 2008, the State Government has implemented the sixth pay commission recommendation w.e.f. 01.09.2008. According to the petitioner, he was not given the aforesaid benefit. Similarly situated persons approached this court by way of W.P. No.10023/2021, W.P. No.8979/2021 & W.P. No.8242/2012 and vide order dated 11.08.2016 all the writ petition were allowed by directing the respondents

that the retired employees are also entitled for pension after implementation of sixth pay commission. The aforesaid order has been upheld by the Division Bench in W.A.No.450/ 2016 vide order dated 11.11.2016. The Government has implemented the same. The petitioner submitted a representation claiming the benefit or revision of the pension in light of the aforesaid judgment and filed the present petition.

02. At this stage, petition is disposed of with direction to the respondents to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner in accordance with law and in light of the aforesaid judgments. It is made clear that if petitioner is found entitle for the said benefit, same may be extended. In case of rejection, a detailed and reasoned order be passed. The entire exercise be completed within 60 days from production of certified copy of this order.

(VIVEK RUSIA) JUDGE Alok

Date: 2024.02.15 16:34:49 +05'30'