Madhya Pradesh High Court
Proff Smt. Kamla Roy vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 5 March, 2025
Author: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
Bench: G. S. Ahluwalia
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:4896
1 WP-2980-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE G. S. AHLUWALIA
ON THE 5 th OF MARCH, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 2980 of 2025
PROFF SMT. KAMLA ROY
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Alok Bandhu Shrivastava - Advocate for petitioner.
Shri Sohit Mishra - Government Advocate for State.
ORDER
This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been
filed seeking the following reliefs:-
"1. That, direction may kindly be given to the respondents to give
the High Arising out of SLP (C) 31968-31969 of 2017
Dr.R.S.SOHANE Versus service benefits of the enhance period up
to the 65 years age of superannuation. In view of order in civil
Appeal No. 4675-4676 of 2019 The State of Madhya Pradesh &
Others.
2. That, the benefit has been already paid by the respondents from
31/05/2015 to 28/09/2015 in the light of interim order of honble
high court while the petitioner completes 65 years age on dated
31/05/2018. The petitioner is entitled to receive the further
difference amount of salary for the period from 28/09/2015 to
31/05/2018. Direction may kindly be given to the respondents to
give the difference amount of service benefits with interest.
3. Issue any other writ, order or direction in the nature of writ
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as this Hon'ble
Court may deem fit in facts and circumstances of case."
2. It is submitted by counsel for petitioner that petitioner had retired on
31.05.2015 from the post of Professor. Cerntain vigilant candidates had
assailed the action of State Authorities in retiring the teacher of Private
Institutions at the age of 60 years, which was finally disposed of by Supreme
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:4896
2 WP-2980-2025
Court by judgment dated 07.05.2019 passed in the case of Dr. R.S. Sohane
Vs State of M.P. and others in Civil Appeal No.4675-4676 of 2019 . It is
submitted that petitioner is also entitled to continue till attaining the age of
65 years and therefore, he was wrongly retired at the age of 60 years.
3. In paragraph 4 of writ petition, it is mentioned that there is no delay
in filing this petition because the case of petitioner is covered by ratio of law
laid down by Supreme Court in the case of Dr. R.S. Sohane (supra) .
4. Heard counsel for the petitioner on the question of delay and laches.
5 . It is true that in service matters generally principle laid down by
Court should be applied to all similarly situated candidates, but in a given
case this Court can refuse to extend the discretionary relief by applying
principle of delay and laches because a fence sitter cannot be allowed to take
advantage of benefit after considerable long time. Even if it is held that
petitioner was entitled to continue up to the age of 65 years, still it is clear
that she would have retired from service in the year 2020 itself. Petitioner has
approached in the year 2025 and even if any relief is granted still she cannot
be reinstated to work up to the age of 65 years.
6. So far as back wages are concerned, it is not a case where petitioner
was willing to serve the department upto the age of 65 years. She never
challenged the action of respondents in superannuating her at the age of 60
years. Even after judgment was passed in the case of Dr. R.S. Sohane
(supra), petitioner did not approach this Court immediately, but has filed this
writ petition on 23.01.2025. Thus, it appears that basic intention of petitioner
behind filing this writ petition is to somehow get the back wages. Once an
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:4896
3 WP-2980-2025
employee is not interested in working, then he/she cannot be extended the
benefit of back wages.
7 . As no substantial relief can be granted to the petitioner and
furthermore, petitioner has not explained the delay and laches in filing the
petition i.e. after 10 years from her retirement, this Court is of considered
opinion that this Court can deny any discretionary relief to the petitioner.
8 . Accordingly, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed on the
ground of delay and laches.
(G. S. AHLUWALIA)
JUDGE
Rashid
