Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 744 (MP)

Rohit Kumar Sharma v. State of M. P.

2009-06-29

A.P.SHRIVASTAVA, SUBHASH SAMVATSAR

body2009
Judgment ( 1. ) This writ appeal is filed by the appellant-petitioner being aggrieved by a part of order dated 31/3/2009, passed by learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.No. 2006/04 (s), whereby the writ petition filed by the petitioner challenging the order of treating the period from 24/4/98 to 23/8/2002 as dies-non was allowed and the said order (Annexure-P/1) dated 23rd August, 2002 was quashed without giving benefit of back-wages. ( 2. ) Brief facts of the case, are that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Asst. Grade-II in the Office of Regional Transport Office, Gwalior. He was compulsorily retired by order dated 24/4/98 along-with other employees. Number of employees including the present appellant-petitioner have approached to the State Administrative Tribunal by filing separate applications. One of the employees, namely, Shri Arjun Das Bansanta preferred an original application i.e. O.A.No. 445/98 which came up before the State Administrative Tribunal and the Tribunal by order dated 17.8.99 (Annexure P/8) set aside the order of compulsory retirement and directed the respondent to reinstate the petitioner with all consequential benefits. ( 3. ) Unfortunately, even though the petitioner has also filed separate application i.e. O.A.No. 431/98 which was prior to application filed by other employee, namely, Shri Arjun Das Bansanta, his case came up for hearing on 15.1.2002. The tribunal, this time passed an order and a large number of employees have been taken back by the respondents themselves and one order has been quashed by the tribunal i.e. in case of Shri Arjun Das Bansanta. The tribunal directed that the applicants to submit a representation alongwith a copy of order passed in Shri Arjun Das Bansanta case and directed the respondents to consider his representation with in two months of its receipt. If the representation is rejected, it has to be passed a speaking order and the applicants will have liberty to assail that order. ( 4. ) In pursuance of the order passed by the tribunal in O.A.No. 431/98, the appellant-petitioner made a representation against the order of compulsory retirement. The said representation was partly allowed on 15.1.2002. The order of compulsory retirement was quashed and the petitioner was again reinstated as Asst. Grade-II. However, there was no order in the aforesaid case about the intervening period. Hence, the petitioner approached this Court by filing petition which was registered as W.P.No. 356/03. The said representation was partly allowed on 15.1.2002. The order of compulsory retirement was quashed and the petitioner was again reinstated as Asst. Grade-II. However, there was no order in the aforesaid case about the intervening period. Hence, the petitioner approached this Court by filing petition which was registered as W.P.No. 356/03. The said petitionwas disposed of by order dated 26.9.2003 with a direction to the respondents to pass appropriate order in respect of the said period i.e. stating from 24.4.1998 to 23.8.2002 the date on which the petitioner was reinstated. ( 5. ) In pursuance of the said order, the State Government had issued another order dated 23.8.2002 and directed that the period starting from 24.4.1998 to 23.8.2002 to be treated as dies-non. The order whereby the aforesaid period was treated as dies-non was challenged by the appellant-petitioner by filing writ petition i.e. W.P. No. 2006/04 (S). The Writ Court allowed the Writ Petition and set aside the order of dies-non. However, the writ Court denied the back wages to the present petitioner, hence, this appeal. ( 6. ) The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the other persons who had filed applications alongwith present appellant-petitioner,were granted the said benefits. He pointed out that Shri Arjun Das Bansanta had filed an application which is numbered as O.A. No. 445/98 while the application filed by the present appellant-petitioner was O.A.No. 431/98 which shows that present appellant-petitioner had filed application prior to Shri Arjun Das Bansanta, however, his case could not be decided alongwith Shri Arjun Das Bansantas case. The writ Court for disallowing back wages has assigned a reason that the petitioner-appellant for the first time approached on 15.1.2002 by making a representation which is not correct. In fact, the petitioner had filed an application, before the tribunal prior to Shri Arjun Das Bansanta, who has been granted all monetary benefits and he has been denied benifits only because of delay on the part of Tribunal on decided the case. ( 7. ) The apex Court in case of Rajpal v. State of Haryana and others (1996) 7 SCC 381 has laid down that the person similarly situated are entitled to the same relief. ( 7. ) The apex Court in case of Rajpal v. State of Haryana and others (1996) 7 SCC 381 has laid down that the person similarly situated are entitled to the same relief. In that case, the apex Court has denied the back-wages on the ground that the petitioner in that case has left out the office after the decision in cases of other similarly situated persons. ( 8. ) This is not a situation in the present case in fact the petitioner-appellant has approached to the Tribunal before Shri Arjun Das Bansanta. Unfortunately, his case was decided after four years after the decision of Shri Arjun Das Bansantas case who was granted all monetary benefits. ( 9. ) The learned Government Advocate for the State could not dispute that in those cases where the tribunal has directed to grant back-wages, the Government has granted back-wages though SLP challenging Shri Arjun Das Bansanta case is also dismissed by the apex Court. ( 10. ) Considering these facts, we allow this appeal and hold that the appellant is also entitled to back-wages for the period of which he was out of employment i.e. from 24/4/98 till the date of actual reinstatement i.e. 23/8/2002. The order passed by the Single Bench is modified accordingly.