[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Surendra Kumar Shukla vs M.P. Metro Rail Corporation Ltd on 25 February, 2026
Author: Maninder S. Bhatti
Bench: Maninder S. Bhatti
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:16393
1 WP-4665-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANINDER S. BHATTI
ON THE 25th OF FEBRUARY, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 4665 of 2026
SURENDRA KUMAR SHUKLA
Versus
M.P. METRO RAIL CORPORATION LTD AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Priyank Agrawal - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Suyash Mohan Guru - Advocate for the caveator.
ORDER
The petitioner's employment after retirement is being sought to be
terminated on the strength of the impugned order dated 27.01.2026 contained
in Annexure P/4, while invoking clause 6 and 8 of the appointment order of
the petitioner dated 04.08.2025 which is contained in Annexure P/2.
2. Counsel for the petitioner contended that clause 6 cannot be invoked
inasmuch it is not a case of resignation of the petitioner, and so far as clause
8 is concerned, the action is apparently premature inasmuch as the post-
retirement contractual engagement is terminable subject to D&AR and
Vigilance clearance from the department.
3. The respondents have filed the return. However, the same does not
deal with clause 6, so far as the same provides invocation upon submission
of resignation by the employee and also clearance by D&AR as well as
Vigilance. Shri Guru submits that though the return has been filed but the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:16393
2 WP-4665-2026
same does not deal with the aforesaid aspect of the matter, therefore, prays
for half a day to seek instructions.
Later on:
4. During the course of the argument, Shri Guru sought time to seek
instruction and accordingly, the matter was passed over for post lunch
session. The matter is again taken up after lunch.
5. Shri Guru has uploaded the order dated 25.02.2026 in ERP software
of this Court and as per the said order dated 25.02.2026, the original order of
termination is being sought to be amended by the respondent by alleging
inter alia that the same has not been issued in terms of clause 6 of the
appointment order and it has also been stipulated that the condition regarding
clearance of D&AR as well as Vigilance is not required as the petitioner
herein joined on re-employment and not on deputation basis.
6. Having considered the aforesaid submissions advanced on behalf of
the parties, undisputedly, the impugned order has been issued while invoking
clause 6 and clause 8 of the appointment order dated 04.08.2025 (Annexure
P/2). Clause 6, according to the respondents, is not being sought to be
deleted from the order of termination, and the order of termination is
supported on the strength of clause 8. Clause 8 of the appointment order is
reproduced hereinbelow:
"8. Your Post Retirement Contractual Engagement is
terminable on one month's notice on either side and is
provisional subject to D&AR and Vigilance clearance
from the parent department."
7. A perusal of the aforesaid clause 8 of the appointment order reflects
that the employees were put to notice that their post-retirement contractual
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:16393
3 WP-4665-2026
employment was terminable on the basis of one month's notice and was
provisional subject to D&AR and vigilance clearance. It is not at all
mentioned in clause 8 that the same pertains to deputation and re-
employment after retirement.
8. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the impugned order dated
27.01.2026 (Annexure P/4) as well as the consequential order uploaded in
ERP software dated 25.02.2026 are unsustainable.
9. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 27.01.2026 (Annexure P/4)
as well as the consequential order uploaded in ERP software dated
25.02.2026 stand quashed.
10. The respondents are directed to allow the petitioner to continue in
service. However, this order shall not preclude the respondents from
proceeding afresh against the petitioner while ensuring adherence to the
principles of natural justice in accordance with law.
C.C. today.
(MANINDER S. BHATTI)
JUDGE
vc
