Madhya Pradesh High Court
Abdul Qadar Khan vs Finance Department on 21 January, 2025
Author: Vijay Kumar Shukla
Bench: Vijay Kumar Shukla
1 WP-4154-2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
WP No. 4154 of 2021
(ABDUL QADAR KHAN Vs FINANCE DEPARTMENT AND OTHERS )
Dated : 21-01-2025
Shri Sunil Kumar Jain - Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Raman
Singh Parihar, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Kushal Goyal - Deputy Advocate General for the
respondents/State.
The present petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India
seeking quashment of the order dated 22/05/2019 and order dated
19/11/2020.
This is second round of litigation. The petitioner earlier filed writ
petition No.20934/2018 (Annexure-P/5) seeking benefit of 5th, 6th and 7th
Pay Commission and also prayed for pay fixation accordingly. The said
petition was disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to file a detailed
representation seeking the aforesaid relief before the Principal Secretary
Finance Department and to decide the claim as per judgment passed in the
matter of Vijay Singh Singoria Vs. State of M.P. & Ors. in W.P.
No.28532/2018 decided vide order dated 11/12/2018 and the Principal
Secretary Finance Department was directed to decide the representation
expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of three month from the
date of its filing.
It was further observed that while deciding the representation, the
Competent Authority will duly consider the order of this Court in the case of
2 WP-4154-2021
Vijay Singh Singoria (Supra).
By the impugned orders Annexures P/1 and P/2, the representation of
the petitioner has been dismissed mainly on the ground that case of the
petitioner is not identical to the case of Vijay Singh Singoria (Supra) stating
that in the said case the claim of the petitioner was relating to the employees,
who were retired prior to 01/01/1996, whereas the petitioner has retired from
service w.e.f. 31/07/1997, therefore, the aforesaid judgment would not apply
in the case of petitioner and also as per circular dated 16/05/2007.
Learned senior counsel for the petitioner argued that while disposing
of the petition, this Court directed the Principal Secretary Finance
Department, whereas the order has been passed by Director, Pension,
Provident Fund and Insurance Department and also by Deputy Secretary
Finance Department. Thus, the order is passed contrary to the direction given
by this Court.
Learned senior counsel for the petitioner further argued that the
petitioner had submitted the detailed representation (Annexure-P/6), whereas
the authority is not discussed the grounds raised in the representation of the
petitioner.
Per contra, learned Deputy Advocate General of the respondents/State
supports the impugned order and submits that the order passed by Director is
approved in the note-sheet by the Principal Secretary.
Considering the aforesaid, this Court deem it fit to direct the Principal
Secretary Finance Department to re-consider the representation of the
petitioner, as directed by this Court in earlier W.P. No.20934/2018 and the
3 WP-4154-2021
said Authority shall consider the grounds raised by the petitioner in the
representation.
Since the petitioner is an octogenarian (above 85 years). Instead of
disposing of the petition, the same is kept pending and the Principal
Secretary Finance Department is directed to re-consider the case afresh
within a period of 30 days from the date of filing of copy of this Court by
passing a reasoned and speaking order.
It is made clear that the order shall be filed before this Court passed by
Principal Secretary Finance Department through the Advocate General
Office.
List after four weeks.
(VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA)
JUDGE
Aiyer
