Madhya Pradesh High Court
Dr. (Mrs.) Anuradha Jain vs Higher Education Department on 5 August, 2021
Author: Sujoy Paul
Bench: Sujoy Paul
1
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Review Petition No. 265/2021
(Balkrishna Rathi Vs. The State of MP & others)
Review Petition No. 271/2021
(Ajay Gautam Vs. The State of MP & others)
Review Petition No. 276/2021
(Dr. (Mrs.) Anuradha Jain Vs. The State of MP & others)
Review Petition No. 209/2021
(Dr. Anil Kumar Gharia Vs. The State of MP & others)
Indore, Dated: 5/8/2021
Heard through video conferencing
Shri L.C. Patne, learned counsel for the review petitioners.
Shri Pushyamitra Bhargav learned A.A.G. for
respondent/State.
I.A. No. 2254/2021 for condonation of delay of 219 days in Review Petition No. 265/2021; I.A. No. 2310/2021 for condonation of delay of 123 days in Review Petition No. 271/2021; I.A. No. 2322/2021 for condonation of delay of 123 days in Review Petition No. 276/2021 & I.A. No. 1730/2021 for condonation of delay of 221 days in Review Petition No. 209/2021 are taken up.
It is contended that after passing the judgement under review, Supreme Court gave liberty to raise the question of back-wages in the same matter namely Dr. R.S. Sohane Vs. State of MP and others on 7.5.2019, but thereafter different Division Benches of this Court by condoning huge delay entertained the relevant proceedings. For example, in Dr. R.K. Sharma Vs. State of MP, 1227 day's delay 2 was condoned, in Dr. Sushant Kumar Sinha Vs. State of MP, three years delay was condoned. Thus, delay may be condoned.
The prayer is opposed by Shri Pushyamitra Bhargav, by filing reply. It is submitted that there is no justifiable reason for belatedly filing this application.
In the opinion of this court, the petitioner has given justifiable reasons and it is shown that Coordinate Benches have condoned the delay of larger amount of days. This fact pleaded in the application is not denied by respondent while filing reply to the application for condonation of delay.
Resultantly in our view, sufficient cause has been shown for belatedly filing these review petitions.
IA Nos. 2254/21, 2310/21, 2322/21 & 1730/21 are allowed, delay is condoned.
With the consent finally heard.
These are the review petitions seeking review of the common order dated 8.7.2019 passed in Writ appeal nos. 378/2018, 686/2018, 960/2018 and 1632/2018.
The Division bench in the order dated 8.7.2019 relied upon the judgement of the Supreme court in Dr. R.S. Sohane Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh Civil Appeal No. 4675-4676/2019 and opined that although appellants are entitled to be reinstated and continue till attaining the age of 65 years, they are not entitled to get back- wages. To the extent back-wages are declined, present review petitions are filed by contending (i) the aforesaid judgement of Dr. R.S. Sohane (supra) was again considered by Supreme court in Misc. Application No. 1838-1839/2019 (Dr. R.S. Sohane Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh) by order dated 23rd September 2019 it was 3 clarified that for back-wages the applicants can pursue their remedies before the appropriate court; (ii) the order under review dated 8.7.2019 is passed on the basis of previous order of Dr. R.S. Sohane in which no back-wages was granted whereas in subsequent order dated 23rd September 2019 liberty was reserved to claim back-wages. Thus question of back-wages needs an adjudication before the writ appellate bench.
Shri Patne, learned counsel for review petitioners submits that after the order of Supreme court, aforesaid dated 23 rd September 2019, other Division benches of Madhya Pradesh High Court has granted back-wages for intervening period. Thus the petitioners cannot be put to a comparative disadvantageous position.
Shri Bhargav, learned AAG, supported the impugned order and submits that it has been in consonance with the directions contained in Dr. R.S. Sohane. The back-wages were rightly declined by the Court.
We have heard the parties at length.
In the opinion of this Court, the ultimate para of order under review shows that it was passed in the light of judgement of Dr. R.S. Sohane in which no directions were issued for grant of back- wages. The relevant portion reads as under:-
"In the light of the aforesaid judgment, the appellant is certainly entitled to continue upto the age of 65 years. The respondents are directed to reinstate the appellant positively within a period of seven days from today. However, the appellant shall not be entitled for back wages for the period he was out of job taking into consideration the principle of 'No work No pay'.However, he/she shall be entitled for notional fixation of salary and 4 other consequential benefits.
The petition stands disposed of. The connected writ appeals also stands disposed of."
It is noteworthy that subsequently on 23rd September 2019 in the case of Dr. R. S. Sohane itself the court clarified that it will be open to the appellants to pursue their remedy for the relief of back- wages. Thus the appellants were at least entitled to address the Court regarding grant of back-wages. The said argument can be decided on its own merits.
Considering the aforesaid, we deem it proper to review and recall the order dated 8.7.2019 to the extent back-wages were declined to the appellants and restore the writ appeal Nos. 378/2018, 686/2018, 960/2018 & 1632/2018 for hearing to its original numbers, so that writ appeals can be heard on the question of grant of back-wages. Ordered accordingly.
The registry shall list the writ appeals before appropriate bench in the week commencing 23rd August 2021.
(Sujoy Paul) (Anil Verma)
Judge Judge
BDJ
Digitally signed by
BHUVNESHWAR DATT JOSHI
Date: 2021.08.05 17:20:14
+05'30'