Madhya Pradesh High Court
Jagdish Chandra Sharma vs Smt. Deepti Gaur Mukherjee on 21 November, 2019
Author: Prakash Shrivastava
Bench: Prakash Shrivastava
~1~
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Conc. 3612/2018
( Jagdish Chandra Sharma Vs. Smt. Deepti Gaur Mukherjee)
Indore, Dated: 21/11/2019
Shri L.C. Patne learned counsel for petitioner.
Shri Lokesh Mehta learned counsel for respondent.
The petitioner is alleging non compliance of the order dated 17/5/2017 passed in WP No. 7644/2016 whereby the order retiring the petitioner at the age of 60 years was set aside with a direction to the respondent to reinstate the petitioner in service and allow him to work upto the age of 62 years with all consequential benefits.
Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner has not been granted the consequential benefit of pay and allowances for the period he had remained out of employment on account of impugned order and that subsequent order dated 21/8/2018 granting seniority and giving benefit of only notional pay fixation from 1/9/2016 amounts to contempt.
As against this learned counsel for respondent has submitted that petitioner has been granted consequential benefit in terms of Full Bench order on the same issue.
Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record it is noticed that the Full Bench by order dated 25/1/2018 passed in WA No. 613/2016 while considering the similar issue has held that:
43. Now, the question arises is that what relief should be granted to the teachers, who stand superannuated on attaining the age of superannuation of 60 years prior to this Judgment. The provisions of the Act are to extend the age of superannuation of the teachers so that ~2~ services of experienced workforce of the teachers are utilized for constructive work of imparting education for another period of two years. The provision is not meant for a personal benefit of the teachers but for larger public good that the experienced teachers should impart education for another period of two years. In view of the said fact, we hold that the teachers, who have attained the age of 62 years prior to the order of this Court passed today, shall not be entitled to any consequential benefit of pay and allowances but the teachers, who have not attained the age of 62 years, shall be called upon to perform their duties up-to the age of 62 years."
It is undisputed in the present case that petitioner has been granted all consequential benefits except the benefit of pay and allowance.
In the direction of this court dated 17/5/2017 passed in WP No. 7644/16 and order dated 5/9/2018 passed in contempt case no. 669/17 it was implicit that all consequential benefits will be granted in accordance with law and the law in this regard has been settled by the Full Bench in the order quoted above.
Hence I am of the opinion that no case for initiating contempt proceeding against the respondent is made out since there is no willful non-compliance of the order of this court. The contempt petition is accordingly dismissed.
C.C. as per rules.
(Prakash Shrivastava) Judge BDJ Digitally signed by Bhuneshwar Datt Date: 2019.11.25 15:40:02 -08'00'