Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ramesh Chandra Sharma vs Madhya Pradesh Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd on 7 April, 2025
Author: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
Bench: G. S. Ahluwalia
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:8035
1 WP-4676-2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE G. S. AHLUWALIA
ON THE 7 th OF APRIL, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 4676 of 2021
RAMESH CHANDRA SHARMA
Versus
MADHYA PRADESH URJA VIKAS NIGAM LTD AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Dharmendra Dwivedi - Advocate for petitioner.
Shri Upendra Kumar Shrivas - Advocate for respondents.
ORDER
This petition under Article 226 of constitution of India has been filed
seeking following reliefs:-
"i) The respondents may kindly be directed to let the petitioner
continue in service up to the age of 62 years.
ii) Order dated 23.03.2015, Annexure P/6 may kindly be quashed
being contrary to the amended rule 19 of the Rules of 1989 as well
as instructions of the State Government.
iii) Any other suitable direction/relief which this Hon'ble Court
deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be
passed."
2. This Court by order dated 26.02.2021 had passed an interim order and
parties were directed to maintain the status quo .
3. It is submitted by counsel for petitioner that by virtue of interim order,
petitioner has worked even after attaining the age of 58 years, and has attained the
age of 62 years also.
4. It is submitted by counsel for parties that so far as age of superannuation
of employees of Madhya Pradesh Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd. is concerned, it has
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:8035
2 WP-4676-2021
already been adjudicated by this Court by order dated 24.11.2023 passed in Writ
Petition No.9188/2022 in the case of Smt. Kusum Jhaba Vs. Madhya Pradesh
Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd. anthers (Principal Seat Jabalpur) . It is further submitted
that since under the orders of High Court petitioner has worked even after the age
of 58 years, therefore, in the light of judgment passed in the case of Munna Lal
Rajak Vs. State of M.P. and others decided on 16.08.2019 in Writ Appeal
No.1326/2019 (Gwalior Bench) the salary paid to the petitioner after attaining the
age of 58 years may not be recovered. Thus, it is submitted that this petition may
also be disposed of in the terms and conditions of order passed by this Court in
the case of Smt. Kusum Jhaba (Supra).
5 . Per contra, this petition is vehemently opposed by counsel for
respondent. However, it is fairly conceded that case is in hand is squarely covered
by order passed by this Court in the case of of Smt. Kusum Jhaba (Supra).
6. Heard learned counsel for parties.
7. This Court in the case of of Smt. Kusum Jhaba (Supra) has observed as
under:-
This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has
been filed for seeking the following reliefs :-
(i) To quash the impugned order dated 7.4.2022 (P/6)
and the petitioner be permitted to work at the age of 62
years.
(ii) To direct the respondents to give all consequential
benefits to the petitioner till the
age of 62 years. (iii) Grant any other relief as deemed
fit and proper in the circumstances of this case, along
with the cost of this writ petition be also awarded.
2. It is submitted by counsel for petitioner that by the impugned
order dated 7.4.2022 the petitioner has been informed that she
would retire on 30.4.2022 after attaining the age of superannuation
of 58 years. It is submitted that the State Government by circular
dated 19.12.2019 has enhanced the age of daily wages employees
from 60 to 62 years. Although the petitioner is also working as
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:8035
3 WP-4676-2021
daily wages employee but she has been denied benefit of
enhancement of age done by the State as per circular dated
19.12.2019.
3. Per contra the petition is vehemently opposed by counsel for the
respondents. It is submitted that Urja Vikas Nigam is
an autonomous body and has its own rules and regulations. The
respondents have taken a decision to enhance the age of
superannuation of regular employees from 58 to 62 years but no
decision has been taken with regard to daily wages employees,
therefore, circular dated 29.12.2019 issued by the State
Government has no application to the employees of M.P. Urja
Vikas Nigam Ltd.
4. Faced with such a situation, it is submitted by counsel for
petitioner that by virtue of an interim order dated 29.4.2022 the
petitioner is still continuing to work as daily wager even after
attaining the age of 58 years.
5. Considered the submissions made by counsel for the parties.
6. During the course of arguments, counsel for the petitioner did
not challenge the age of superannuation and accordingly, it is held
that the petitioner has been rightly directed to be superannuated
after attaining the age of 58 years.
7. Now, the question for consideration is as to whether the
respondents can recover the salary paid to the petitioner which she
has earned by virtue of an interim order dated 29.4.2022 or not?
8. A Division Bench of this Court in the case of Munna Lal Rajak
Vs. State of M.P. and others, decided on 16.8.2019 in
W.A.No.1326/2019 (Gwalior Bench) has held that in case if an
extended service is rendered by an employee by virtue of an
interim order then the salary earned by him cannot be recovered.
9. Accordingly, it is directed that although the petitioner is not
entitled to continue after the age of 58 years but the respondents
are hereby restrained from recovering the salary paid to her during
her extended period, for which, she has served by virtue of an
interim order dated 29.4.2022.
10. With aforesaid observations, petition is disposed of."
8. In this petition, this Court by order dated 26.06.2021 had directed the
parties to maintain the status quo and not to change service condition and
accordingly, in compliance of aforesaid interim order, petitioner was allowed to
work and according to petitioner, he has attained the age of 62 years also.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:8035
4 WP-4676-2021
9. Accordingly, this petition is disposed of in the terms and condition of
the order passed by in the case of of Smt. Kusum Jhaba (Supra) as well as
Munnalal Rajak (supra) and it is held that although the age of superannuation of
petitioner was 58 years, but since he has worked upto the age of 62 years in the
light of interim order, therefore, salary paid to petitioner after age of 58 years
shall not be recovered but the respondents shall take the pensionary service upto
the age of 58 years only.
(G. S. AHLUWALIA)
JUDGE
Rashid
