Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sheel Kumar Tiwari vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 14 August, 2025
1 WP-1523-2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN
ON THE 14th OF AUGUST, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 1523 of 2019
SHEEL KUMAR TIWARI
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Manoj Chandurker, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri V.P. Tiwari, learned Government Advocate for respondent/State.
ORDER
By way of this petition, the petitioner who is a permanent classified
employee, who stood classified by the Labour Court is seeking benefit of
pension.
2. The necessary factual background for the purpose of present order is
that the petitioner was initially engaged in the respondent-department in the
year 1991 and he continued to be in service. Thereafter, he filed case
No.81/1998 before the Labour Court which was decided by award dated
27/04/2001 (Annex.P/1) and the Labour Court in Para 7 of the said award
has categorically held that the petitioner has earned the entitlement to
be classified as permanent employee in terms of Standard Standing Orders. It
has been categorically held that the petitioner is entitled to be classified as
permanent and get regularized from the date of presentation of claim before
the Labour Court i.e. 30/06/1996.
2 WP-1523-2019
3. Thereafter, the respondents passed a consequential order dated
03/01/2003 and classified the petitioner as permanent Choukidar, which is on
record as Annex.P/2. Thereafter, the petitioner approached this Court in WP
No.19970/2011 and vide order dated 07/02/2017, this Court directed the
respondents to pay salary payable to regular Choukidar (Watchman) to the
petitioner, which order was slightly modified in WA No.303/2017,to the
effect that the salary shall be paid as per judgment in the case of Ram Naresh
Rawat Vs. Ashiwini Ray and others reported in (2017) 3 SCC 436 .
Thereafter, the petitioner stood retired from service on 30/04/2016. Now, the
petitioner seeks benefits of pension.
4. Counsel for the petitioner has relied on judgment of Hon'ble Apex
Court in the case of Madanlal Sharma (Dead) through LRs. Vs. State of M.P.
and others passed in SLP(C) No.18981/2021 on 19/12/2024. The judgment
passed by single Bench of this Court in WP No.8950/2012 (Indore) has been
confirmed and the order passed in writ appeal setting aside the said order, has
been set aside by the Hon'ble Apex Court. In WP No.8950/2012, this Court
had ordered that the petitioner once upon being classified as permanent
employee by the Labour Court and no challenge being made to the aforesaid
order of Labour Court and complied with by the State, therefore, the services
of the employee are pensionable and he is entitled to pension.
5. The Hon'ble Apex Court has confirmed the said order passed by the
Single Bench in the following terms:
2. Madanlal Sharma, since deceased, approached the High Court
of Madhya Pradesh, Bench at Indore, invoking its jurisdiction
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by filing a writ
3 WP-1523-2019
petition.
3. The case pleaded in the writ petition was that Madanlal had
initially been appointed on 11th March, 1974 as a mason. He had
approached the Labour Court under the Madhya Pradesh Industrial
Relations Act, 19603 with a prayer for his "permanent
classification". By an order dated 12th October, 1999, the Labour
Court directed the respondents to classify Madanlal as permanent
and pay him the arrears of salary with effect from 04th June, 1996.
4. The order of the Labour Court was challenged by the
respondents before the Industrial Court by presenting an appeal
under the provisions of the Act. Vide order dated 17th December,
2002, the appeal was dismissed as time-barred.
5. The respondents then approached the High Court by filing a
petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India4 which also
stood dismissed by an order dated 05th July, 2001. While
upholding the order of the Appellate Court (which dismissed the
appeal of the respondents as time-barred), the High Court also
made a reference to the merits of the claim of Madanlal and found
that evidence was led before the Labour Court which substantiated
his contention.
6. Although not referred to in the order of the learned Single
Judge as well as the Hon'ble Division Bench from which this
appeal arises, it is noted that the respondents had challenged the
order dated 05th July, 2001 by filing a special leave petition
before this Court . Materials placed before us reveal that the said
special leave petition stood dismissed on 17th January, 2003.
7. The writ petition of Madanlal was considered by the learned
Single Judge, who after noting the relevant facts and
circumstances as well as the law applicable to qualifying service
for being entitled to pension, allowed the writ petition by
judgment and order dated 11th August, 2016 and directed the
respondents to extend benefit of pension to Madanlal with effect
from 31st January(sic, March), 2012, within a period of three
months.
8. The judgment and order of the learned Single Judge was carried
in appeal6 , by the respondents in the writ petition. Hon'ble
Division Bench of the High Court by the judgment and order dated
28th September, 2019 upset the findings returned by the learned
Judge. The writ appeal was allowed and the writ petition of
Madanlal dismissed.
9. It is this judgment of the Hon'ble Division Bench that is the
subject matter of challenge in the present appeal.
10. We have heard Mr. Dushyant Parashar, learned counsel
appearing for the heirs/legal representatives of Madanlal as well as
4 WP-1523-2019
Mr. Harmeet Singh Ruprah, learned Deputy Advocate General
appearing for the respondents.
11. It appears on perusal of the impugned judgment and order that
relief was declined to Madanlal on the ground that he had not been
inducted in service in accordance with law and also that no order
had been passed by the State Government for regularizing
Madanlal on a permanent post. It is premised on such reasons that
the Hon'ble Division Bench of the High Court was of the view
that Madanlal was not entitled to pension.
12. Madanlal was in service right from 1974 till 31st March, 2012
when he retired after attaining the age of superannuation, i.e., for
almost 38 years.
13. The respondents having been unsuccessful in having the
findings of the Labour Court reversed even after litigation
travelled to this Court for the first time, it was highly improper on
the part of the Hon'ble Division Bench to embark on an inquiry as
to whether Madanlal had been inducted in service as per rules or
as to whether he had been granted the status of a permanent
employee. However, to be fair to the Hon'ble Division Bench, we
ought to record once again that it might not have been aware of
dismissal of the special leave petition.
14. Be that as it may, we have noticed that once the Labour Court
directed that Madanlal should be classified as a permanent
employee, the respondents in their appeal petition before the
Industrial Court at Indore had taken a point that Madanlal cannot
be regularized in the absence of a sanctioned post. It is, therefore,
clear that the respondents were well and truly aware of the
implications of the order of the Labour Court which required them
to regularize his service on a post. If no post was available then,
Madanlal was required to be placed on a supernumerary post till
such time a sanctioned post became available where he could be
accommodated. The neglect/failure/omission of the respondents in
not conferring permanent status to Madanlal cannot afford any
justification or good reason for them to take advantage of their
own wrong in depriving Madanlal of his pensionary benefits.
15. It is in these circumstances that we feel constrained to hold
that the learned Single Judge was perfectly right in allowing the
writ petition and holding that Madanlal was entitled to pensionary
benefits from 31st January (sic, March), 2012.
16. We, therefore, set aside the impugned judgment and order of
the Hon'ble Division Bench of the High Court and restore the
judgment and order of the learned Single Judge.
17. Now that Madanlal has passed away, the retiral benefits to
which he was entitled, treating him to be a permanent employee,
5 WP-1523-2019
as well as benefit on account of family pension shall be released in
favour of his heirs/legal representatives together with 6% interest
from the date of his retirement within three months from date,
upon compliance with all formalities and proper identification of
his heirs/legal representatives.
18. The appeal stands allowed, accordingly.
19. Accepting the request of Mr. Ruprah, we make it clear that we
have held against the respondents and granted benefits to
Madanlal and his heirs/legal representatives considering the order
dated 12th October, 1999, passed by the Labour Court granting
him the status of permanent employee.
20. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed.
6. Counsel for the State though has vehemently opposed the petition
but looking to the position that the Labour Court has classified the petitioner
as permanent Choukidar is not in a position to point out to any distinguishing
feature in the present case.
7. Consequently, the petition is allowed in the similar terms as in the
case of Madanlal Sharma (supra) . It is ordered that the respondents shall pay
pension and all other benefits to the petitioner in similar manner as have
been paid in the case of Madanlal Sharma (supra) .
8. Let the needful be done within a period of 45 days from the date of
production of copy of this order.
9. The petition is allowed and disposed of.
(VIVEK JAIN)
JUDGE
RS
