Madhya Pradesh High Court
The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Om Prakash Saxena on 19 June, 2023
Author: Rohit Arya
Bench: Rohit Arya, Sanjeev S Kalgaonkar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ROHIT ARYA
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJEEV S KALGAONKAR
ON THE 19 th OF JUNE, 2023
WRIT APPEAL No. 745 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
1. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY FINANCE DEPARTMENT
VALLABH BHAWAN BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. DISTRICT TREASURY OFFICER, DISTRICT DATIA
DATIA (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. DISTRICT PENSION OFFICER, DISTRICT DATIA
DATIA (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANTS
(SHRI ANKUR MODY- ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERAL FOR
APPELLANT/STATE)
AND
OM PRAKASH SAXENA S/O LATE SHRI RAGHU NATH
SAHAY SAEXNA PENSIONER R/O D-7 RP COLONY
GWALIOR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENT
Th is appeal coming on for admission this day, JUSTICE ROHIT
ARYA passed the following:
ORDER
This Intra-court appeal, under Section 2(1) of Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nayayalay (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005, is directed against the order dated 02.01.2023 passed in W.P.No. 7424/2022; whereby, the Writ Signature Not Verified Court has allowed payment of additional 20% pension to respondent, who Signed by: AVINASH BHARGAV Signing time: 21-06-2023 05:01:20 PM 2 completed 79 years of age and running 80 years giving him the benefit of Clause 1.3 of the circular dated 03.08.2009.
Shri Mody, learned Additional Advocate General, submits that the order is pregnable with illegality as the said clause entitles only such pensioners who have completed 80 years of age and not running 80 years of age. It is further clarified by subsequent circular dated 15.07.2014.
We have perused the impugned order and also appreciated submissions advanced by both the parties. Respondent; an old person has served the Department with full sincerity and devotion reached the age of superannuation with unblemished service record long back. Now, while he is running 80 years of age and is in the evening of his life, in our considered view, should not be dragged to the Court to contest the instant appeal for a paltry amount which he may get i.e. the benefit of additional 20% of the pension drawn by him. Therefore, on equitable consideration, we deem it fit not to interfere in the impugned order, however, leave the question open.
Accordingly, Writ Appeal stands dismissed.
(ROHIT ARYA) (SANJEEV S KALGAONKAR)
JUDGE JUDGE
Avi
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AVINASH
BHARGAV
Signing time: 21-06-2023
05:01:20 PM