Madhya Pradesh High Court
Jagdish Pd. Burman (Retired) vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 4 November, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:55497
1 WP-8638-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN
ON THE 4 th OF NOVEMBER, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 8638 of 2025
DEVKARAN KUSHWAHA (RETIRED)
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WITH
WRIT PETITION No. 8668 of 2025
JAGDISH PD. BURMAN (RETIRED)
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 27230 of 2025
BIHARILAL GUPTA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Shri Manoj Chandurker - Advocate for the petitioners.
Shri Anshuman Swamy- Government Advocate for the respondents.
ORDER
These petitions have been filed by the petitioners seeking identical
relief on identical facts therefore, they are being decided by this common
order.
2. The petitioners have been classified as permanent by different orders
of the Labour Court on specified posts and the said orders have been
confirmed by the Industrial Court. The orders/award of the Labour Court
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:55497
2 WP-8638-2025
under provisions of M.P. Industrial Relations Act have been placed on record
as Annexure R/1 in each of the three cases.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the identical issue has
already been decided by this Court in W.P. No. 17202/2018 and the
petitioners' case is also identical in nature and deserves similar treatment.
4. Per contra, it is contended by counsel for the respondent State that the
petitioners already seem to be covered under National Pension System (NPS)
and therefore, the petitioner cannot seek the benefit of old pension now.
5. In W.P. No. 17202/2018 this Court in identically placed situation of a
person who was having order of classification by the Labour Court has
passed the following 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.63/1996 before the Labour
Court which was decided by award dated 18/08/1999 (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 regularized from the date of presentation of claim
before the Labour Court i.e. 12/03/1996.
3. Thereafter, the respondents passed a consequential order
dated 23/03/2001 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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:55497
3 WP-8638-2025
SCC 436. Thereafter, the petitioner stood retired from service on
28/02/2013. 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 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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:55497
4 WP-8638-2025
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 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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:55497
5 WP-8638-2025
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, 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.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:55497
6 WP-8638-2025
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 has 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. "
6. The case of the petitioners seem to be similarly situated and only
distinguishing feature sought to be projected is that the petitioners seem to be
covered under NPS, which is denied by the counsel for petitioners on the
ground that no contribution has been made by the State towards NPS. If that
be the position that the petitioner is covered under NPS and any contribution
has been made by the State, then the respondents would be at liberty to
deduct the already paid employer's contribution with return earned thereon
under NPS (if any) while settling the pension of the petitioner.
7. The petitions, therefore, stand allowed in similar terms as W.P. No.
17202/2018 and the said order will apply to the case of the petitioners also
mutatis-mutandis and respondents shall do needful within 45 days from the
date of production of copy of this order.
(VIVEK JAIN)
JUDGE
MISHRA
