Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 42 (MP)

Munna Singh Tomar v. State of M. P.

2021-01-15

VISHAL MISHRA

body2021
ORDER 1. 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 heard and decided finally in physical hearing to maintain social distancing. 2. With the consent of the parties, the matter is finally heard in physical hearing. 3. The present petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking following reliefs :- “(i) That, the respondents be directed to make payment of salary to the petitioner between the period 28.10.2002 to 26.10.2006 with interest @ 18% p.a. and the respondents be directed to grant arrears of salary, seniority and other consequential benefits to the petitioner. (ii) That, the other relief doing justice including cost be awarded.” 4. It is pointed out by the counsel for the petitioner that earlier the petitioner was compulsory retired vide order dated 23.10.2002 from service considering the rule 42 (b) of the Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976. The aforesaid order of compulsory retirement was put to challenge by the petitioner alongwith others and in analogous hearing of three other petitions the matter was finally heard and decided by the Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 25.8.2005 in W.P.No.7768/2003 (Munna Singh v. State of M.P. and others), W.P.No.7766/2003 (Jaswant Singh v. State of M.P. and others) and W.P.No.7769/2003 (Shiroman Singh v. State of M.P. and others). The Hon'ble Court has pleased to quash the order of compulsory retirement of the petitioner alongwith others and they were directed to be reinstated in service with all other consequential benefits. It is pointed out that in pursuance to the aforesaid order, the petitioner's services was reinstated vide Annexure P-3 and he was also permitted joining vide Annexure P/4 and he has continued upto his retirement. It is pointed out that the part of the order at paragraph 10 in Annexure P/2 was not complied with in totality, therefore, the present petition is being filed. It is pointed out that the part of the order at paragraph 10 in Annexure P/2 was not complied with in totality, therefore, the present petition is being filed. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further drawn attention of this Court to Annexure P/5 and the order passed in the case of similarly situated employee Shiroman Singh Bhadoria and his case was also considered and disposed of along with the present petitioner and the Court had directed as under :- “Keeping in view the totality of circumstances, as there is a specific direction of this Court to grant all consequential benefits to the petitioners which was clarified again in Contempt Petition by making it clear that the petitioners shall be entitled for back wages, the respondents are directed to grant back wages to the petitioners for the period they were out of employment i.e. with effect from 28.10.2002 till 27.10.2006. It is needless to mention that in case the aforesaid amount is not paid within a period of three months from today, the same shall carry interest at the rate of 8% (eight percent) till the date of realization.” 5. It is fairly submitted that the petitioner could not file any contempt petition against the impugned order but as per the directions given by the Court in Annexure P/2 is concerned, that finality has not been challenged to the part of this order by the respondent/State. In such circumstances, the benefit of back wages for intervening period should have been extended to the petitioner but they are not extended to the petitioner. He prays that the entire salary of intervening period be extended to the petitioner alongwith interest. 6. Per contra, learned Panel Lawyer for the State has submitted that the second petition for the same issue is not maintainable. Once the matter has already been decided in the earlier round of litigation i.e. W.P.No.7768/2003, the petitioner should have filed the contempt petition raising all the grievances but no contempt petition was filed. However, in pursuance to the order dated 25.8.2005 he has already been reinstated in service and was continued upto the retirement. As far as the salary of the intervening period is concerned, the same was not paid to the petitioner owing to the fact that the petitioner has not worked in the intervening period. Learned Panel Lawyer for the State has prayed for dismissal of the petition. As far as the salary of the intervening period is concerned, the same was not paid to the petitioner owing to the fact that the petitioner has not worked in the intervening period. Learned Panel Lawyer for the State has prayed for dismissal of the petition. 7. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8. From the perusal of the record, it is not disputed that order of compulsory retirement of the petitioner dated 23.10.2002 was quashed by the Hon'ble Court in W.P.No.7768/2003 vide order dated 25.8.2005 and this Court has directed and held as under :- “10. Accordingly, Writ Petition No.7766 of 2003, Writ Petition No.7768 of 2003 and Writ Petition No.7769 of 2003 are allowed and the compulsory retirement of Jaswant Singh, Munna Singh and Shiroman Singh are quashed and they are directed to be reinstated in service with all other consequential benefits.” 9. It is clear that the petitioner was compulsory retired and the order of compulsory retirement of the petitioner was quashed and they were directed to be reinstated in service with all other consequential benefits. However, the fact remains that that in pursuance to the aforesaid order, he has already been reinstated and permitted to join and he continued upto the date of his retirement but the fact remains that the part of the order whereby it was directed to pay all the consequential benefits has not been complied with by the respondents. The aforesaid order could have been assailed in contempt petition by the petitioner but it could not been done so. 10. Considering the aforesaid, the second petition is of the same cause of action but the cause of action is not maintainable. However, the fact remains that the directions given in the earlier round of litigation has already attained its finality and the case of similarly situated employee i.e. Shiroman Singh Bhadoria in W.P.2639/2008 (S) the Court has already directed for grant of back wages as the issue was finalized in the earlier round of litigation. 11. However, the fact remains that the directions given in the earlier round of litigation has already attained its finality and the case of similarly situated employee i.e. Shiroman Singh Bhadoria in W.P.2639/2008 (S) the Court has already directed for grant of back wages as the issue was finalized in the earlier round of litigation. 11. In such circumstances, this Court deems it appropriate to direct the petitioner to file a detailed representation to the competent authority within a period of 15 days from today and in case, a detailed representation is filed by the petitioner, the competent authority is directed to consider and decide the same and extend the benefit as directed in W.P.No.2639/2008 (S) (Siroman Singh Bhadoria & Another v. State of M.P. and others) to the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. 12. Needless to say that the aforesaid benefits be extended to the petitioner as if there is no other legal impediment. 13. The petition stands disposed of . No order as to the cost. 14.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.