[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Lata Shukla vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 26 March, 2026
Author: Vishal Dhagat
Bench: Vishal Dhagat
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:25006
1 WP-2335-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL DHAGAT
ON THE 26th OF MARCH, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 2335 of 2026
SMT. LATA SHUKLA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Sanjay K. Agrawal - Senior Advocate with Shri Yashovardhan
Jain - Advocate for petitioner.
Shri Ved Prakash Tiwari - Government Advocate for
respondents/State.
ORDER
Petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India making following prayer :
"i. This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ in the
nature of Mandamus commanding the respondent no.4 to count the ad-
hoc services of the petitioner (i.e., from 27/09/1985 to 14/06/1990) as
qualifying service for the purpose of fixation of pension and other
retiral benefits in the interest of justice.
ii. This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ in the
nature of Mandamus commanding the respondent no.4 to treat
27/09/1985 (i.e., when petitioner was appointed on ad-hoc basis) as date
of initial appointment of the petitioner and not 14/06/1990 in the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:25006
2 WP-2335-2026
interest of justice.
iii. This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ in the
nature of Mandamus commanding the respondent no.4 to re-fix the
pension of the petitioner by counting the period from 27/09/1985 to
14/06/1990(service rendered by petitioner on ad-hoc basis) as
qualifying service in the interest of justice.
iv. This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ in the
nature of Mandamus commanding the respondent no.4 to pay arrears of
pension to the petitioner upon its re-fixation in the interest of justice.
v. Any other suitable relief deemed fit in the facts and
circumstances of the case may also kindly be granted together with the
cost of this Petition."
2. It is submitted by learned Senior Counsel appearing for petitioner
case of petitioner is squarely covered with order passed by this Court in case
o f Dr. Arun Prakash Bukharia vs The State of M.P. and others, W.P. No.
10214/2021, order dated 26.11.2025. Petitioner has filed representation for
counting of adhoc services, but same is pending.
3. Government Advocate appearing for respondents/State submitted
that representation shall be examined by competent authority in accordance
with law and result will be communicated to petitioner.
4. Heard the counsel for the parties.
5. Considering facts and circumstances of the case, petition is disposed
off with following directions :
(i) Petitioner is directed to file a fresh representation alongwith
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:25006
3 WP-2335-2026
documents relied upon and order passed by this Court in case of Dr. Arun
Prakash Bukharia (supra) before the competent authority.
(ii) If representation is filed within a period of 15 days, then
respondent/competent authority shall consider the same in light of aforesaid
order objectively within a period of 90 days. If petitioner's case is covered by
aforesaid judgment, then benefits be granted to petitioner within aforesaid
period.
(iii) Reasonable and speaking order be passed, which may be
communicated to petitioner.
(iv) Court has not expressed any opinion on merits of the case and
order be passed in accordance with law.
6. With aforesaid direction, writ petition is disposed off.
(VISHAL DHAGAT)
JUDGE
vkt
