Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ram Prasad Vaishnav vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 20 June, 2025
Author: Milind Ramesh Phadke
Bench: Milind Ramesh Phadke
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:12401
1 WP-9341-2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
ON THE 20th OF JUNE, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 9341 of 2019
RAM PRASAD VAISHNAV
Versus
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Anil Sharma - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri M.S. Jadon - Govt. Advocate for the State.
ORDER
The present petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner being aggrieved by the order dated 18.10.2018 whereby claim of the petitioner for counting of his past services prior to the absorption in the matter of computation of pension and pensionary benefits had been denied.
2. Short facts of the case are that petitioner was initially appointed on 19.08.1959 by the Collector on the post of Panchayat Secretary and thereafter, on 02.06.1960, he was appointed for two years on probation. In light of the order of the State Government dated 25.01.1982, the Dy. Director Panchayat and Social Service, Division Bhopal passed an order dated 01.02.1982 and the petitioner was appointed on the post of Gram Sahayak w.e.f. 01.02.1982 in the pay-scale of Rs.155-252 vide Annexure P/3. The respondent department issued order dated 12.08.1987 with regard to Signature Not Verified Signed by: PAWAN KUMAR Signing time: 6/26/2025 2:31:26 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:12401 2 WP-9341-2019 absorption of Panchayat Secretary as Gram Sahayak. This is the second round of litigation before this Court. Earlier one Writ Petition No.6158 of 2018 preferred by the petitioner was disposed of vide order dated 19.03.2018 by directing the Competent Authority to consider the case of the petitioner in the light of the order passed in the case of State of M.P. & Others vs. Laluram Sharma, dated 30.07.2004. As the petitioner stood retired on 31.01.1997 from the post of Gram Sahayak and for the purpose of pension, the period from 01.02.1982 to 31.01.1997 was required to be counted but the respondent department has rejected the same. Hence, the present petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the matter is squarely covered by the the order dated 17.01.2020 passed in the matter of Jhamaklal & Others vs. State of M.P. vide Writ Petition No.1715 of 2014, whereby, in similar set of facts the Coordinate Bench in the light of the order dated 30.07.2007 passed in the matter of the Secretary, Department of Panchyat & Rural Development, Govt. of M.P. vs. Laluram Sharma vide Writ Appeal No.328 of 2006 alongwith connected Writ Appeal Nos.326/327/329/330/524/525/526/258/521/523/522/527 of 2006 (as common question of law and fact were involved in all these appeals) had disposed of the matter in the light of the orders passed in Sundar Lal Joshi vs. State of M.P. [Writ Petition No.4844 of 2008(S), decided on dated 02.12.2010] and Hari Shankar Sharma vs. State of M.P. & Others [Writ Petition No.3979 of 2007, decided on 02.12.2010, as under:
"Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention Signature Not Verified Signed by: PAWAN KUMAR Signing time: 6/26/2025 2:31:26 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:12401
3 WP-9341-2019 of this Court towards the order dated 30/7/2007 passed in W.A.No. 328/2006 (Gwalior) (State of MP & Others Vs. Laluram Sharma) and his contention is that the controversy involved in the present case stands concluded by order dated 30/7/2007. The order dated 30/7/2007 reads as under :
W.A.No. 328 / 2006 W.A.No. 328 / 200630/07/2007 Appellants State by Shri Vivek Khedkar, Government Advocate. Respondents by Shri jai Prakash Mishra, Anii Sharma and Deepak Chandna, Advocates.
Heard counsel for the parties.
This Order shall govern the disposal of thirteen Writ Appeals viz. 328, 326, 327, 329, 330, 524, 525, 526, 258, 521, 523, 522, and 527, all of the year 2006, as common question of law and fact is involved in all these appeals.
2. Writ Appeal No.328/06 shall be the leading case.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner in W.P.5720/03 was appointed to the post of Group Secretary in Panchayat Department vide order Annexure A/1 dated 15/1/1958 issued by the Secretary, Panchayat Circle Bhind.
He was re-designated as Panchayat Secretary vide order Annexure A/2 dated 8/6/1965, whereby all the group secretaries Panchayat were re-designated as Panchayat Signature Not Verified Signed by: PAWAN KUMAR Signing time: 6/26/2025 2:31:26 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:12401 4 WP-9341-2019 Secretaries. Panchayat Act was amended in the year 1981 and new Act came into force. After coming into force of 1981 Act, all the Panchayat Secretaries were re-designated as village assistants and order dated 17/10/1983 Annexure A/3 was issued in this respect, whereby the petitioner in W.P.No.5720/03 was appointed as village assistant in the pay scale. of Rs.155-252.
4. Subsequently a circular was issued by the State Government on 12/8/1987 which provides that the services of Panchayat Secretaries which are taken over on 1/2/1982 shall be absorbed as village assistants. However, so far as, their seniority is concerned, they shall be placed below the persons who are already working in the department and they will have to fulfill the minimum qualification prescribed by the aforesaid circular.
5. Petitioner retired somewhere in the year 1991 and he submitted his claim for pensionary benefit. This benefit was rejected by the State government on the ground that the petitioner has not completed the qualifying service required for payment of pensionary benefit, as his services prior to 27.1.1982 could not be counted.
6. Only question involved in all these appeals was whether those employees who are absorbed in the department as per the circular dated 12/8/1987 are entitled for counting Signature Not Verified Signed by: PAWAN KUMAR Signing time: 6/26/2025 2:31:26 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:12401 5 WP-9341-2019 of their services rendered prior to 27/1/1982. As they were denied the benefit by he State. Government, they approached by filing different writ petitions.
7. Learned single Judge, after hearing the parties, allowed the petitions vide the impugned order, hence, all these appeals are filed by the State Government.
8. Common question involved in all these writ appeals is whether the employees who had worked prior to 27/1/1982 are entitled for benefit of their previous service for the purpose of pensionary benefit and whether that period can be counted as qualifying period for pensionary benefit.
9. Learned single Judge relying upon a Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of Panchavat Karmachari Sangh vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and another, 1985 JLJ 609 has allowed the petitions holding that the petitioners are entitled for pension and their previous services should be counted towards the qualifying service required for pensionary benefit. This order is under challenge in these writ appeals. 10. First contention raised by the learned Government Advocate for the appellant State is that the order impugned is illegal and contrary to law. Counsel for the appellant, in support of his argument, has relied upon Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of Panchavat Karmachari Sangh vs: State of MP, 1988 JLJ 675.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: PAWAN KUMAR Signing time: 6/26/2025 2:31:26 PMNEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:12401 6 WP-9341-2019 From perusal of the said judgment, we find that this judgment is quite distinguishable. In that case, a petition was filed by Panchayat Karmachari Sangh praying for issuing a writ of mandamus directing. the State to declare the Panchayat Secretaries as Government Servants. Question of counting their previous. service was not involved in that case. Hence, the said judgment is quite distinguishable.
11. Another judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellants is the case of State of Punjab vs. Dev Dutt Kaushal etc., 1995 AIR SCW 3743. From perusal of the said judgment, it appears that in that case the question involved was whether the employees who were working in a private college are entitled for counting of their previous services rendered in a private college towards qualifying services for pensionary benefit. The Apex Court in that case has held that they are not entitled for counting of their previous service. From perusal of the said judgment, it appears that in the private college in which those employees were in service, their services were not pensionable. The Apex Court has also considered that there was a gift deed whereby services of the employees were transferred. In the said gift deed, it was clearly mentioned that the employees of the private college shall be treated as new entrants and therefore, the Apex Court, considering the terms and Signature Not Verified Signed by: PAWAN KUMAR Signing time: 6/26/2025 2:31:26 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:12401 7 WP-9341-2019 conditions of the gift deed, has held that the petitioners in that case are not entitled for counting of their services in the private college.
12. Next judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellants State is the case of State of Punjab Vs. Tara Singh Shahi. (1996) 8 SCC 448. That is also a case of taking over staff of a private college by the State Government. Gift deed was executed between the parties whereby terms and conditions of the employees of private college were laid down and the Apex Court in Para 8 of the said judgment has held that gift deed in respect of the matter does not provide for applying rules for retirement at the age of 58 years. This judgment also depends upon the language of the gift deed.
13. Another judgment cited by the learned counsel for the appellants State is the case of State of Puniab vs. Harbans Singh Gill, (2000) 9 SCC 410. This judgment was delivered by the Apex Court relying upon the earlier judgment in the case of Dev Dutt Kaushal (supra), hence, the said judgment is also distinguishable.
14. In the judgment in the case of Government of Tamil Nadu vs. M. Ananchu Asari. and .others, (2003) 10 SCC 503. cited by the learned counsel for the appellants State, the question involved was fixation of cut off date for Signature Not Verified Signed by: PAWAN KUMAR Signing time: 6/26/2025 2:31:26 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:12401 8 WP-9341-2019 entitlement of pension. This question is not directly involved in these appeals.
15. Last judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant State is the case of State of Punjab and others vs. Harnam Singh and others, (1997) 3 SCC 32 which relates to question. of seniority on taking over an educational institution by the Government. 'This question. is also not relevant for decision of these appeals. Circular dated 1218/1987 itself provides that the persons who are already working as Panchayat Secretaries shall be placed below the persons who are already working in the department. Hence, the question of seniority is not involved in these appeals.
16. The case totally depends upon the circular dated 12/8/1987 issued by the State. Government. On perusal of the aforesaid circular; it is apparent that the Government was treating these Panchayat employees as Panchayat Secretaries who were working earlier to 1/2/1982 and they were absorbed. The Government never treated them as fresh employees nor fresh appointment by the said circular. Once it is held that services of the employees are absorbed: then, they are entitled for counting of their previous service towards pensionary benefit.
17. Similar question was considered by this Court in the case C.A.Bhakre vs. State of M.P. And others, 1987 Signature Not Verified Signed by: PAWAN KUMAR Signing time: 6/26/2025 2:31:26 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:12401 9 WP-9341-2019 M.PLJ 509 and in that case; services of Municipal teachers who were absorbed in the Government service was under
consideration and this Court has held that municipal teachers who are absorbed in the Government service are entitled to pensionary benefit by counting their previous service.
18. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of State of MP Vs. Champa Soni and another, 2001(2) MPLJ 333 has held that persons who were initially appointed in Integrated Women and Child Development Project established by the State and were absorbed in the Department of Panchayat and Social Welfare of the State of Madhya Pradesh, on abolition of the project are entitled for counting of their past service on the ground that they were absorbed in the State Government services, and therefore, they are entitled for counting their past service."
19. In view of the aforesaid discussions, we do not find any merit in these appeals. Hence, all the appeals stand dismissed with no order as to costs. In the light of the aforesaid judgment as well as the judgment delivered in W.A.No. 493/2012 and W.P.No. 3979/2007, decided on 22/8/2012 and 2/12/2010, respectively, the present Writ Petition also stands allowed. The petitioners shall be entitled for the benefit flowing out of the order passed in W.A.No. 328/2006. Respondents are directed to take into account the Signature Not Verified Signed by: PAWAN KUMAR Signing time: 6/26/2025 2:31:26 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:12401
10 WP-9341-2019 past services of the petitioners. The exercise of conferring the benefits to the petitioners be concluded within a period of four months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order."
4. It was further submitted that Writ Appeal No.328 of 2006 was filed against the order dated 04.03.2004 passed in Writ Petition No.5720 of 2003 (O.A. No.2730 of 2000) and connected Writ Appeal No.329 of 2006 preferred by the State challenging the order dated 11.03.2004 passed in Writ Petition No.5718 of 2003 [Ramswaroop Vyas (dead) vs. State of M.P.] when was dismissed by the Division Bench vide common order dated 30.07.2007, the order dated 30.07.2007 passed therein was challenged by the State before the Apex Court in SLP(C) No.23996 of 2008, but the said SLP also dismissed vide order dated 12.01.2012; against which, a Review Petition (C) No.2055 of 2012 (State of M.P. vs. Ramswaroop Vyas) was preferred by the State, which was also dismissed by the Apex Court vide order dated 17.01.2013.
5. It was further submitted that in earlier round of litigation, one Writ Petition No.6158 of 2018 preferred by the petitioner was disposed of vide order dated 19.03.2018 by directing the Competent Authority to consider the case of the petitioner in the light of the order passed in the case of State of M.P. & Others vs. Laluram Sharma, dated 30.07.2004, but without considering the aforesaid aspect, the impugned order herein has been passed by relying upon the order dated 10.01.2013 passed in the matter of Vichitra Singh Hoda Vs. State of M.P. & Others (Writ Appeal No.702 of Signature Not Verified Signed by: PAWAN KUMAR Signing time: 6/26/2025 2:31:26 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:12401 11 WP-9341-2019 2013), which is per se illegal, as the analogy which has been laid in the matter of Lalu Ram (supra) was affirmed by the Apex Court vide order dated 12.01.2012 would prevail over the case of Vichitra Singh Hoda (supra).
6 . Per contra, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondents/State has opposed the prayer so made by counsel for the petitioner and prayed for dismissal of the present petition alleging that no illegality or perversity has been committed by the authority concerned in rejecting the claim of the petitioner while passing the impugned order so also the present petition suffers from delay and laches of 20 years, as the petitioner who stood retired in the year 1997, is unable to explain inordinate delay in approaching the Court and assailing the impugned order.
7. Heard.
8. After hearing counsel for the rival contentions and perusing the record, this Court finds that impugned order Annexure P/1 has been passed by the authority concerned ignoring the directions of this Court in earlier round of litigation (Writ Petition No.6158 of 2018) issued vide order dated 19.03.2018. For reference, the order dated 19.03.2018 is quoted hereinbelow:
"This writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by a retired employee seeking a direction to the respondents to count his service prior to the absorption in the matter of computation of pension and pensionary benefits.
Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal Signature Not Verified Signed by: PAWAN KUMAR Signing time: 6/26/2025 2:31:26 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:12401 12 WP-9341-2019 No.328/2006 dated 30.07.2007 (Annexure-P/7) to bolster his submissions. He has submitted that similarly placed persons have been extended the same benefits, however, petitioner had been discriminated.
Without entering into the merits of submissions so advanced, the petitioner is set at liberty to file a representation in the context of aforesaid judgment along with relevant documents addressed to the respondent No.2 within fifteen days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. If such a representation is filed, the same shall be dealt with by the respondent No.2 in accordance with law, bearing in mind the concept of equality, regard being had to the judgment referred to above and relief upon by the counsel for the petitioner (supra).
9. From the aforesaid directions, it was clear that the case of the petitioner was required to be considered in the light of the order passed in the case of State of M.P. & Others vs. Laluram Sharma, dated 30.07.2004, but after perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the same has been passed relying upon the order dated 10.01.2013 passed in the matter of Vichitra Singh Hoda Vs. State of M.P. & Others (Writ Appeal No.702 of 2013), instead of applying the analogy, prevailing over the case of Vichitra Singh Hoda ( supra), laid in the matter of Lalu Ram (supra) which was affirmed by the Apex Court vide order dated 12.01.2012.
10. So far as objection of the respondents/State with regard to delay in Signature Not Verified Signed by: PAWAN KUMAR Signing time: 6/26/2025 2:31:26 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:12401 13 WP-9341-2019 filing the present petition is concerned, this Court finds that the petitioner was justified in waiting for a reasonable period of time for the employer to react and afford the benefits of the judgment in rem passed by this Court in 1985 in the matter of Panchayat Karmchari Sangh. The period of about 20 years from 31.01.1997 ostensibly appears to be a period of inactivity and indolence on the part of petitioner but considering the nature of grievance, which related to non-grant of pension, this Court is of the considered view that a liberal, instead of a parochial approach needs to be adopted to condone the delay of a few years which took place between the date of superannuation and the date when petitioner knocked the doors of this Court for the first time. More so, it is needless to emphasis that non-
payment of pension is a recurring cause of action. Delay and latches in writ jurisdiction do not have any statutory or constitutional recognition but is a mere self imposed rule formulated by Superior Courts to weed out frivolous, vexatious and delayed cause of action. The writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226/227 of the Constitution arms this Court with ample power to condone the delay especially where denial of relief would lead to injustice. This Court is thus of the considered view in the attending facts and circumstances that the Authority concerned ought not to have denied the extension of full consequential benefit to petitioner of arrears of pension right from the date of superannuation.
11. For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, the present petition stands allowed and disposed of in the manner as directed by this Court in the matter of Jhamaklal & Others vs. State of M.P. (supra) which shall apply mutatis Signature Not Verified Signed by: PAWAN KUMAR Signing time: 6/26/2025 2:31:26 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:12401 14 WP-9341-2019 mutandis in the present case. The respondents are directed to take into account the past services of the petitioner rendered by him before absorption and thereafter, his pension be fixed accordingly by giving benefit of total length of service in the pension. Let the aforesaid exercise be concluded within a period of six months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
12. Certified copy as per Rules/Directions.
(MILIND RAMESH PHADKE) JUDGE pwn* Signature Not Verified Signed by: PAWAN KUMAR Signing time: 6/26/2025 2:31:26 PM