Madhya Pradesh High Court
Chandrabali Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 18 November, 2025
Author: Maninder S. Bhatti
Bench: Maninder S. Bhatti
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:58591
1 WP-44552-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANINDER S. BHATTI
ON THE 18th OF NOVEMBER, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 44552 of 2025
CHANDRABALI SINGH
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Vijay Chandra Rai - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Kamalnath Nayak - Panel Lawyer for the State.
ORDER
The parties are at consensus, that issue involved in this writ
petition is identical to a case which has been decided by a Co-ordinate
Bench of this Court vide order dated 14-08-2028 passed in W.P.
No.1523 of 2019 (Sheel Kumar Tiwari vs. The State of M.P. and others).
2. The Co-ordinate Bench has decided the aforesaid case in the
light of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Madanlal Sharma
(dead) through LRs. Vs. State of M.P. and others, SLP(C)
No.18981/2021, decided on 191-12-2024, wherein the Apex Court ruled
thus :
"2. Madanlal Sharma, since deceased, approached
the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Bench at
Indore, invoking its jurisdiction under Article 226
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:58591
2 WP-44552-2025
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 had challenged the order
dated 05th July, 2001 by filing a special leave
petition before this Court . Materials placed before
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:58591
3 WP-44552-2025
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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:58591
4 WP-44552-2025
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 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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:58591
5 WP-44552-2025
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."
3. Considering the aforesaid, the present writ petition is allowed in
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:58591
6 WP-44552-2025
similar terms in which the Apex Court has decided in the case of
Madanlal Sharma (Dead) through LRs. (supra) . Respondents are
directed to to extend the benefit of pension and other benefits to the
petitioner in the light of the decision of the Apex Court in Madanlal
Sharma (Dead) through LRs. (supra).
4. Let entire payment be made to the petitioner within a period of
45 days from the date of production of certified copy of this order.
5. The present writ petition stands allowed/disposed of in the
above terms.
(MANINDER S. BHATTI)
JUDGE
PB
