Madhya Pradesh High Court
Govind Prajapatii vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 13 August, 2025
Author: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
Bench: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
1 WP-17052-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
WP No. 17052 of 2025
(GOVIND PRAJAPATII Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS )
Dated : 13-08-2025
Shri Kabir Quraishi - Advocate for petitioner.
Shri S.S. Kushwaha - Government Advocate for the State.
Considered I.A. No.9103/2025, an application for condonation of
delay in filing the application for correction/modification.
2. For the reasons mentioned in the application, the delay in filing the
aforesaid application is hereby condoned.
3. Accordingly, I.A. No.9103/2025 is disposed of.
4. Also heard on I.A. No.9104/2025, an application for modification
of order dated 20.05.2025.
5. It is submitted by counsel for petitioner that the benefit of judgment
passed by the Supreme Court in case of Ram Naresh Rawat Vs. Ashwini Ray
reported in 2017 (3) SCC 436 should have been awarded from the date of
classification and not from the date of order of classification.
6. Considered the submission made by counsel for petitioner.
7. Whether the benefit of judgment passed in the case of Ram Naresh
Rawat (Supra) should be granted from the date of classification or from the
date of order of classification is immaterial because in either case, the arrears
beyond the period of three years from the date of filing of writ petition
cannot be granted.
8. Although the provisions of Limitation Act do not apply to the Writ
2 WP-17052-2025
Petitions but arrears can be denied on the ground of delay and latches. For
the purposes of guidance, Article 7 of the Limitation Act is reproduced as
under :
Period of Time from which period
Description of suit
limitation begins to run
For wages in the case of any When the wages accrue
7. Three years
other person due.
9. Furthermore, the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and
another Vs. M. Siddaraj in Miscellaneous Application Diary No.2400 of
2024 in Civil Appeal No.3933 of 2023, has held as under:-
"Delay condoned.
We had passed the following interim order dated 06.09.2024, the operative
portion of which reads as under:
"(a) The judgment dated 11.04.2023 will be given effect to in
case of third parties from the date of the judgment, that is, the
pension by taking into account one increment will be payable
on and after 01.05.2023. Enhanced pension for the period prior
to 31.04.2023 will not be paid.
(b) For persons who have filed writ petitions and succeeded,
the directions given in the said judgment will operate as res
judicata, and accordingly, an enhanced pension by taking one
increment would have to be paid.
(c) The direction in (b) will not apply, where the judgment has
not attained finality, and cases where an appeal has been
preferred, or if filed, is entertained by the appellate court.
(d) In case any retired employee has filed any application for
intervention/impleadment in Civil Appeal No. 3933/2023 or
any other writ petition and a beneficial order has been passed,
the enhanced pension by including one increment will be
payable from the month in which the application for
intervention/ impleadment was filed."
We are inclined to dispose of the present miscellaneous applications
directing that Clauses (a), (b) and (c) of the order dated 06.09.2024 will be
treated as final directions. We are, however, of the opinion that Clause (d)
of the order dated
06.09.2024 requires modification which shall now read as
3 WP-17052-2025
under:
"(d) In case any retired employee filed an application for
intervention/impleadment/writ petition/original application
before the Central Administrative Tribunal/High Courts/this
Court, the enhanced pension by including one increment will
be payable for the period of three years prior to the month in
which the application for intervention/ impleadment/ writ
petition/ original application was filed."
Further, clause (d) will not apply to the retired government employee who
filed a writ petition/original application or an application for intervention
before the Central Administrative Tribunal/High Courts/this Court after
the judgment in "Union of India & Anr. v. M. Siddaraj"1, as in such cases,
clause (a) will apply.
Recording the aforesaid, the miscellaneous applications are disposed of.
We, further, clarify that in case any excess payment has already been
made, including arrears, such amount paid will not be recovered.
It will be open to any person aggrieved by non-compliance with the
directions and the clarification of this Court, in the present order, to
approach the concerned authorities in the first instance and, if required, the
Administrative Tribunal or High Court, as per law.
Pending applications including all intervention/impleadment applications
shall stand disposed of in terms of this order."
10. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered opinion that since
petitioners cannot be granted arrears of wages beyond the period of three
years from the date of filing of the writ petition, therefore, even otherwise no
modification is required.
11. Accordingly, I.A. No.9104/2025 is rejected.
12. The proceedings are finally disposed of.
(G. S. AHLUWALIA)
JUDGE
Aman
