Madhya Pradesh High Court
Suman Bai vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 10 March, 2025
Author: Vijay Kumar Shukla
Bench: Vijay Kumar Shukla
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:6435
1 WP-6267-2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA
ON THE 10th OF MARCH, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 6267 of 2021
SUMAN BAI
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Prateek Patwardhan - advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Bhagyashree Gupta - GA for State.
Shri Ravindra Prakash Joshi - Advocate for respondents No.2 to 4.
ORDER
In the instant petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated
26.2.2021 passed by the respondents, whereby the representation of the
petitioner claiming the benefit of Viniyamitikaran in light of the circular
dated 7.10.2016 has been rejected.
The facts of the case are that the petitioner was engaged on daily
wages since 1983. By oral order, his services were terminated in the year
2000. The said order was challenged by the petitioner by filing a reference
before the Labour Court, Ujjain. The said reference was answered in his
favor, and the award was passed on 20.12.2007, whereby the petitioner has
been directed to be reinstated in service without back wages. Thereafter, the
petitioner claimed viniyamitikaranas per the Circular dated 7.10.2016,
however, the same has been rejected on the ground that the petitioner had not
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:6435
2 WP-6267-2021
continued in service without interreption from 16.5.2007 to 1.9.2016.
Counsel for the petitioner argued that once the petitioner has been
directed to be reinstated in service by the Labour Court, the continuity in
service would fall as a matter of law. In support of his submissions, he has
placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of
Nandkishore Shravan Ahirrao Vs. Kosan Industries (P)Ltd passed on
10.1.2020 in Civil Appeal No.201-202 of 2020. It is relevant to reproduce
para 7 of the said judgment as under:-
"7. Ex facie, the Labour Court having awarded reinstatement to
the appellant, continuity of service would follow as a matter of
law. The award of the Labour Court dated 27 February 2008 does
not specifically deny continuity of service. Hence the observation
of the High Court to the effect that the Labour Court had denied
continuity of services erroneous and would accordingly stand
corrected in terms of what has been observed herein-above. The
appellant would be entitled to continuity of service."
The petitioner has also claimed the age of superannuation from 60
years to 62 years. He submits that the aforesaid age of superannuation from
60 years to 62 years has been adopted by the Board by the respondents on
8.10.2020 prior to the retirement of the petitioner.
In the light of the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case
o f Nandkishore Shravan Ahirrao (supra), this Court finds that once the
petitioner has been directed to be reinstated in service by the Labour Court,
his claim for viniyamitikaran could not have been denied on the ground that
the petitioner had not worked continuously during the period of termination.
In view of the aforesaid, the petition is allowed. The impugned order
dated 26.2.2021 is quashed. The respondents are directed to extend the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:6435
3 WP-6267-2021
benefit of viniyamitikaran to the petitioner along with all consequential
benefits, including retiral dues and also the age of superannuation from 60
years to 62 years. The aforesaid exercise shall be carried out within a period
of two months from the date of filing of a copy of the order passed today.
With the aforesaid, the petition is allowed and disposed of.
(VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA)
JUDGE
VM
