Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 952 (MP)

Maniram Kushwah v. State Of M. P.

2020-09-25

VISHAL MISHRA

body2020
JUDGMENT Vishal Mishra, J. - In the wake of unprecedented and uncertain situation due to outbreak of the Novel Corona virus (COVID-19) and considering the advisories issued by the Government of India, this petition has been taken up for hearing through video conferencing to maintain social distancing. 2. With the consent of the parties, the matter is finally heard. 3. The present petition has been filed being aggrieved by illegal and arbitration action on the part of the respondents not counting his past services before regularization for the purpose of pension. It is further submitted that the petitioner was engaged as a daily wager Telephone Attendant in the respondents' department on 14.02.1979 and while he was working with the Office of Respondent No.3, he has been retired. His salary was being paid from the contingency fund on monthly basis. Thereafter, services of the petitioner was regularized vide order dated 31.12.1998 w.e.f. 01.01.1999 on the post of Telephone Attendant in Worked Charged Establishment against clear vacant post and regular Pay-Scale of Rs. 2750-70-3800-75-4400 was granted w.e.f. the date of regularization. On attaining age of superannuation, the petitioner was retired from the services w.e.f. 28.02.2015 from the post of Telephone Attendant from the Office of Executive Engineer, Sub-Division, Morena, District Morena. On bar perusal of PPO, it reveals that for the purposes of pension respondents have taken into consideration services of petitioner w.e.f. 01.01.1999, instead of his initial date of appointment i.e. 14.02.1979, whereas in terms of M.P. (Worked Charged and Contingency Paid Employees) Pension Rules, 1979, the petitioner is fully entitled to receive benefits of pension and other retiral dues from the date of his appointment. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance in the case of Laxmikant Mishra Vs. The State of M.P. & Others in W.P.No.5133/2016 order dated 27.07.2016 and Gaurishankar Pandey Vs. State of M.P. and Others in W.P.No.16652/2016 order dated 04.10.2017 and further submitted that many persons like Laxmikant Mishra, Ramvilas Sharma, Netram Sharma, Raghuveer Tiwari retired from Joura Division have been granted the benefits of counting past services for pension purpose and payments have also been made to them and although the case of the petitioner is identical to them, no benefit has been given to him. It is submitted that a representation was sent by the petitioner to the respondents requesting to provide benefit of counting past services and make payment of his arrears etc but is of no avail. It is further submitted that this writ petition may be disposed of in terms of the order passed in W.P.No.5133/2016 & W.P.No.16652/2016 (Supra) by the Coordinate Bench of this Court and prayed that the respondents No.2 and 3 may be directed to decide the representation within the stipulated time. 5. Learned Panel Lawyer for the State has no objection to the innocuous prayer made by the counsel for the petitioner. 6. The petitioner is directed to resubmit a detailed representation to the respondents No. 2 and 3 within a period of seven working days alongwith all the relevant documents and the copy of the identical orders, in turn, the respondents No.2 and 3 are directed to dwell the representation and decide the same within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order and if the petitioner is found entitled for the benefits claimed by him the same may be extended to him within a period of three months from the receipt of certified copy of this order and in case the authorities arrive at a conclusion that the petitioner is not entitled then a reasoned order be passed showing the reasons for his non-entitlement and the outcome be communicated to the petitioner within the aforesaid period. 7. With the aforesaid observation, the petition is disposed of. 8. It is made clear that this Court has not made any comments upon merits of the case. 9. E- copy of this order be provided to the petitioner and it is made clear that E-copy of this order shall be treated as certified copy for practical purposes in respect of this order.