Betal Singh Vaish vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2024 Latest Caselaw 6517 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Betal Singh Vaish vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 4 March, 2024

Author: Vivek Agarwal

Bench: Vivek Agarwal

                                                              1
                            IN      THE      HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                  AT JABALPUR
                                                       BEFORE
                                         HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWAL
                                                  ON THE 4 th OF MARCH, 2024
                                               WRIT PETITION No. 16814 of 2010

                           BETWEEN:-
                           BETAL SINGH VAISH S/O LATE SHRI CHAMPALAL
                           VAISH, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, VILL. ORIYAMAL POST
                           CHANDURI KHURD, TEH. & DISTT. SEONI M.P.
                           (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                          .....PETITIONER
                           (BY SHRI ISHTIYAQ HUSSAIN - ADVOCATE)

                           AND
                           1.     THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
                                  SECRETARY SCHOOL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT
                                  OF VALLABH BHAWAN BHOPAL M.P. (MADHYA
                                  PRADESH)

                           2.     THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR SEONI DISTT. SEONI
                                  (MADHYA PRADESH)

                           3.     THE COLLECTOR SEONI DISTT. SEONI (MADHYA
                                  PRADESH)

                           4.     THE BLOCK EDUCATION OFFICER SEONI DISTT.
                                  SEONI (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                       .....RESPONDENTS
                           (BY SHRI T.K. KHATKA - PANEL LAWYER )

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

Petitioner's case is that petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher in the year, 1994. His services were dispensed with. He had filed Original Application No.1871 of 1994 before the M.P. State Administrative Tribunal,

Jabapur vide order dated 02.03.2002, his Original Application was allowed and State Administrative Tribunal has quashed the order of termination dated 10.08.1994.

2. Thereafter, petitioner was when not reinstated, filed W.P. No. 1875 of 2003 which was allowed vide order dated 19.11.2003 and therafter, when contempt was filed, petitioner was reinstated in the year, 2008. He demanded seniority from the original date which has been granted by the respondents vide Annexure R-1 but he has not been given the benefit of computing of the said service for the purpose of calculation of pensionary benefit etc.

3. Shri Khatka, learned Panel Lawyer is not in a position to explain that on

which principle of which of the Rules, the petitioner has been denied computation of his past service for the purpose of computation of pensionary service.

4. Taking these facts into consideration, order Annexure R-1 dated 01.07.2014 granting seniority but denying him the benefit of its computation for the purpose of pensionary benefit etc. is modified and it is directed that the petitioner will not only be entitled to his seniority but will also be entitled to compute that period as the period for the purpose of calculation of qualifying service for the purpose of pension.

5. It is further directed that, in the light of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shiv Nandan Mahto Vs. State of Bihar & Ors. (2013)11 SCC 626, petitioner was stopped from working and for no fault on his part, he was not reinstated despite the orders of the competent forum i.e. the M.P. State Administrative Tribunal, therefore, from the date of the order of the Tribunal, petitioner will be entitled to salary also.

5. With the aforesaid, this writ petition is disposed of.

(VIVEK AGARWAL) JUDGE AR