Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 12 (MP)

B. K. Kumawat v. Ministry of Finance

2016-01-05

PRAKASH SHRIVASTAVA

body2016
ORDER 1. Heard finally with consent. 2. At the outset, learned counsel for petitioner has submitted that identical controversy has been decided by this Court in Wit Petition No.14067/2013 in the matter of Dr. Surendra Narayan Gupta v. State of M.P. and others vide order dated 20th March 2014. 3. Counsel for State has not disputed this aspect. 4. This Court had disposed of Writ Petition No.14067/2013 on 20.3.2014 by passing following order : “The petitioner before this Court has filed this present petition for issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents to grant him the pensionary benefits by taking into account recommendation of the 5th Pay Commission based upon the implementation of Bhramswarup Committee with effect from 1.1.1996. The petitioner has further stated that he has been granted the benefit with effect from 1.4.2007 and by virtue of the judgment delivered by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh and others v. Smt Kamla Jain and another is entitled to receive the pensionary benefits in light of the recommendations of the 5th Pay Commission with effect from 1.1.1996. Learned Government Advocate has not disputed the judgment delivered by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh and others v. Smt Kamla Jain and another. Paragraphs 6, 7 and 8 of the aforesaid judgment reads as under :- "6. We have carefully gone through the order passed by the learned Single Judge and have also examined the relief claimed by the respondent in the writ petition. For the purposes of proper appreciation, it would be profitable to refer the relief claimed by the respondent in the writ petition which reads as follows :- "(i) It is, therefore, prayed that a writ of mandamus may kindly be issued to the respondents, directing them to pay the entire arrears of pension @ Rs.12,840/- per month with 9% interest per annum as directed by the Hon'ble High Court in Writ Petition No.1239/2010, decided on 26.11.2010, as the order passed by the Hon'ble High Court has attained finality since the respondents did not reconsider the matter within a period of three months as directed by the Hon'ble High Court. All other consequential benefits arising from the facts of the case may also be conferred on the petitioner. All other consequential benefits arising from the facts of the case may also be conferred on the petitioner. (ii) Any other writ, order or direction, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also kindly be passed in the interest of justice." 7. As has been admitted before us, the respondent would not be entitled to the pension @ Rs.12,840/- per month, but would be entitled to the pension which is to be calculated taking into account Rs.12,840/- per month as basic pay with effect from 1.1.1996. Since the learned Single Judge in the operative part of the order has directed payment of arrears of pension to the respondent with effect from 1.1.1996 upto 1.4.2007 "as claimed by the petitioner" (respondent herein) along with interest, we modify this part of the order passed by the learned Single Judge and directed that the respondent would be entitled to the arrears of pension with effect from 1.1.1996 upto 1.4.2007 calculated on the basis of pay at Rs.12, 840/- per month. If the said amount of arrears of pension is already calculated and paid to the respondent, the appellants need not to pay any interest. However, it is found that the amount of arrears of pension or part thereof has not yet been paid to the respondent, the appellants would pay the balance of arrears of pension to the respondent with interest @ 9% per annum , within a period of one month from today. 8. The writ appeal stands disposed of in terms of the aforesaid directions. There shall be no order as to costs." Keeping in view the aforesaid judgment delivered by Division Bench of this Court as the petitioner is also claiming the same relief, the writ petition stands allowed. The respondents are directed to grant the benefit to the petitioner with effect from 1.1.1996. As the Division Bench has also granted interest to the petitioner therein, the petitioner shall also be entitled for interest at the same rate i.e. @ 9% per annum. The exercise of passing an appropriate order and granting arrears be concluded within a period of four months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. With the aforesaid, petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs. 5. The exercise of passing an appropriate order and granting arrears be concluded within a period of four months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. With the aforesaid, petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs. 5. In view of the undisputed submission made by counsel for parties, the present petition is also disposed of by ordering that the direction issued in the matter of Dr. Surendra Narayan Gupta (supra), will apply mutatis mutandis in case of present petitioner.