Madhya Pradesh High Court
The State Of Madhya Pradesh Ministry Of ... vs Shri Mahendra Kumar Lalan on 11 March, 2025
Author: Vivek Rusia
Bench: Vivek Rusia
1 WA-495-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SURESH KUMAR KAIT,
CHIEF JUSTICE
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA
ON THE 11th OF MARCH, 2025
WRIT APPEAL No. 202 of 2025
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Versus
VIRENDRA KR. NAGAR
Appearance:
Shri Sudeep Bhargava- Dy. Advocate General for the appellant / State.
Shri Ajay Bagadia - Senior Advocate alongwith Shri Murtuza Bohra -
Advocate for the respondent.
WITH
WRIT APPEAL No. 440 of 2025
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Versus
DR. SURENDRA NARAYAN GUPTA
Appearance:
Shri Sudeep Bhargava- Dy. Advocate General for the appellant /
State.
Shri Ajay Bagadia - Senior Advocate alongwith Shri Murtuza
Bohra - Advocate for the respondent.
WRIT APPEAL No. 469 of 2025
MINISTRY OF FINANCE AND OTHERS
Versus
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: DIVYANSH
SHUKLA
Signing time: 13-03-2025
16:05:56
2 WA-495-2025
GEETA MAHESHWARI AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Sudeep Bhargava- Dy. Advocate General for the appellant /
State.
Shri Ajay Bagadia - Senior Advocate alongwith Shri Murtuza
Bohra - Advocate for the respondent.
WRIT APPEAL No. 470 of 2025
MINISTRY OF FINANCE AND OTHERS
Versus
BADRI PRASAD KHOTI
Appearance:
Shri Sudeep Bhargava- Dy. Advocate General for the appellant /
State.
Shri Ajay Bagadia - Senior Advocate alongwith Shri Murtuza
Bohra - Advocate for the respondent.
WRIT APPEAL No. 493 of 2025
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH MINISTRY OF FINANCE
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY AND OTHERS
Versus
DIGAMBAR PATWARDHAN
Appearance:
Shri Sudeep Bhargava- Dy. Advocate General for the appellant /
State.
Shri Ajay Bagadia - Senior Advocate alongwith Shri Murtuza
Bohra - Advocate for the respondent.
WRIT APPEAL No. 494 of 2025
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: DIVYANSH
SHUKLA
Signing time: 13-03-2025
16:05:56
3 WA-495-2025
MINISTRY OF FINANCE AND OTHERS
Versus
GOVIND PRASAD SHARMA
Appearance:
Shri Sudeep Bhargava- Dy. Advocate General for the appellant /
State.
Shri Ajay Bagadia - Senior Advocate alongwith Shri Murtuza
Bohra - Advocate for the respondent.
WRIT APPEAL No. 495 of 2025
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH MINISTRY OF FINANCE AND
OTHERS
Versus
SHRI MAHENDRA KUMAR LALAN
Appearance:
Shri Sudeep Bhargava- Dy. Advocate General for the appellant /
State.
Shri Ajay Bagadia - Senior Advocate alongwith Shri Murtuza
Bohra - Advocate for the respondent.
WRIT APPEAL No. 496 of 2025
MINISTRY OF FINANCE AND OTHERS
Versus
SHASHIKANT GHATPANDE AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Sudeep Bhargava- Dy. Advocate General for the appellant /
State.
Shri Ajay Bagadia - Senior Advocate alongwith Shri Murtuza
Bohra - Advocate for the respondent.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: DIVYANSH
SHUKLA
Signing time: 13-03-2025
16:05:56
4 WA-495-2025
WRIT APPEAL No. 497 of 2025
MINISTRY OF FINANCE AND OTHERS
Versus
VISHNUKANTA SHARMA AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Sudeep Bhargava- Dy. Advocate General for the appellant /
State.
Shri Ajay Bagadia - Senior Advocate alongwith Shri Murtuza
Bohra - Advocate for the respondent.
WRIT APPEAL No. 498 of 2025
MINISTRY OF FINANCE AND OTHERS
Versus
HIRALAL MAHESHWARI
Appearance:
Shri Sudeep Bhargava- Dy. Advocate General for the appellant /
State.
Shri Ajay Bagadia - Senior Advocate alongwith Shri Murtuza
Bohra - Advocate for the respondent.
ORDER
Per: Justice Vivek Rusia
Regard being had to the similitude of the controversy involved in
the aforesaid appeals, they have been heard analogously and disposed of by
this common order.
02. The State of Madhya Pradesh and others have filed this writ appeal
against the order dated 15.04.2024, whereby Writ Petition No.7429 of 2015
5 WA-495-2025
and others have been allowed by directing State of M.P. to give the benefit
of revised pension to the petitioners in the light of the resolution dated
10.09.2008 with arrears and interest @ 6% per annum.
03. All the writ petitioners are pensioners of State Government retired
prior to 01.01.2006. The grievance of the writ petitioners is that they are
being discriminated by the State Government with those pensioners who
retired after 01.01.2006. The writ petitioners have been deprived the benefit
of revision of pension at par with the pensioners who retired after 01.01.2006
and this discrimination is causing financial loss to them. The Apex Court in
the case of All Manipur Pensioners Association by its Secretary V/s State of
Manipur and others reported in AIR 2019 SC 3338 held that there cannot be
two class of pensioners in respect of the implementation of benefit of pay
commission. Relying on the aforesaid judgment, the Writ Court has allowed
the writ petitions. Hence, this writ appeal before this Court inter alia on the
ground that the law laid down in respect of the State of Manipur has wrongly
been applied by the Writ Court in the State of Madhya Pradesh which is
comparatively second largest State in the country.
04. The State Government cannot burden the financial implication
after revision of pension of these pensioners, this plea cannot be considered
because the State Government has not come up with the figure about the
number of pensioners and the financial liability which would come on State
Exchequer. The financial constraint cannot be a ground to deny the
legitimate claim to the pensioners. The appellant / State has failed to point
out the difference between the pensioner retired on or before 31.12.2005 and
6 WA-495-2025
the pensioners retiring on or after 02.01.2006. Two days' difference between
two retired persons cannot make them suffer in respect of the monetary
benefits, therefore, the Writ Court has rightly held that there cannot be a two
class of pensioners in the State of Madhya Pradesh. The benefit of pay
revisions applies not only to the existing employees, but to the ex-employees
who are getting pension as per law. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
All Manipur Pensioners Association (supra) has not held that this law would
apply only in the State of Manipur, the judgment passed by the Apex Court
is a law under Article 1421 of the Constitution of India hence, applies to
entire country. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Krishna Swami V/s
Union of India, (1992) 4 SCC 605 in Para 39 has held as under:
39. The Constitution confers in explicit language judicial review on the
Supreme Court and by operation of Articles 138, 139 and 140, enlarged that
power, to alongate and effectively adjudicate the questions doing full and
effective justice. The power of judicial review is to stamp out excesses in
exercise of power, injustice or miscarriage of justice. The decision of this
Court is the last word on the interpretation of the Constitution and the laws
as law of the land under Article 141. The Judge is the living oracle working
in dry light of realism pouring life and force into the dry bones of law to
articulate the felt necessities of the time. The Judge, in particular from the
higher judiciary, possesses undoubtedly, power and jurisdiction to decide
rightly or may err as well. The error must be corrected as provided under
law. In its absence, it cannot be disturbed. The superior court has
jurisdiction and power to determine its own jurisdiction and error in that
behalf does not constitute an error of jurisdiction. The people would shape
their course of conduct or dealings or legal affairs in accordance with law.
The law laid down by this Court operates as precedent. The law laid, thus,
needs stability, continuity and certainty. The judicial vacillation would
undermine the respect for the law and the utility of the very judicial process
as well as its efficacy. We are bound by the taught traditions and built-in
heritage of law. Adherence to precedents, stare decisis, is usually a wise
policy for rule of law unless we have clear, compelling and substantial
reasons for its reconsideration in the larger public interest. Reconsideration
of an earlier view is not due to an act of judicial fallibility but an index of
supremacy of law. So when all the relevant provisions of law or material
aspects of the case or binding precedent was not brought to the notice of the
Court and its impact on the general administration of law, it would need
reconsideration. The obvious error committed by the Court leading to
miscarriage of justice would need correction by Article 142 or Section 114
7 WA-495-2025
read with Order 47 Rule 1 or Section 151 CPC etc. But by itself it is not a
licence to unsettle the settled law or keep the law at variance at pleasure or
whim.
05. In view of the above, we have no reason to take a different view as
has been taken by the Writ Court. Accordingly, all the present writ appeals
are hereby dismissed.
06. Let a photocopy of this order be kept in all the aforesaid connected
writ appeals.
(THE CHIEF JUSTICE) (VIVEK RUSIA)
JUDGE JUDGE
Divyansh
