Madhya Pradesh High Court
N.P. Verma vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 7 July, 2015
1
Writ Appeal No.704 of 2013
Writ Petition No.15658 of 2013
Writ Petition No.18811 of 2013
07.07.2015
Shri Rajendra Tiwari, learned Senior counsel with Shri
D.K.Dixit and Shri R.D.Paraha, learned counsel for the
appellant in Writ Appeal No.704/2013.
Shri Rajendra Tiwari, learned Senior counsel with Shri
D.K.Dixit and Shri R.D.Paraha, learned counsel for the
petitioners in Writ Petition No.15658/2013 and Writ Petition
No.18811/2013.
Writ Appeal No.704 of 2013
Heard counsel for the parties.
This appeal takes exception to the order dated 25.04.2013
passed in Writ Petition No.18535/2011. The learned Single
Judge dismissed the writ petition preferred by the appellant
praying for direction against the respondents to fix the basic pay
of the appellant (writ petitioner) at Rs.14,940/- with effect from 01.01.1996 and revise his pension accordingly and to pay the benefit with effect from 27.07.1998 along with interest @ 12% p.a. on arrears of pension. The further relief claimed in the writ petition was to issue direction to the respondents to give benefits to the writ petitioner of revised pension in terms of Circular dated 19.01.2010.
2. The learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition principally on the ground that the appellant had retired on 2 30.12.1995 i.e. prior to the implementation of recommendations of 5th Pay Commission, which have been made applicable with effect from 01.01.1996. On this finding, the learned Single Judge declined to interfere in the writ petition and summarily dismissed the writ petition.
3. In the present appeal, the counsel for the appellant has invited our attention to the decision of another learned Single Judge of this Court dated 08.02.2012 in Writ Petition No.5802/2011, which according to the appellant has been confirmed by the Division Bench in Writ Appeal No.1488/2012 as also by the Supreme Court by dismissal of SLP filed therefrom. In addition to this judgment, the appellant has placed reliance on circulars appended to the writ petition, which according to the appellant were brought on record along with the additional submissions of the appellant pursuant to the liberty given by the Court. These circulars have bearing on the subject matter of the writ petition and in particular the reliefs claimed by the appellant but have not been considered by the learned Single Judge as were analysed by another Single Judge of this Court referred to above, which decision has been confirmed by the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No.1488/2012 decided on 24.01.2013.
4. Indisputably, these matters have not been dealt with by the learned Single Judge while summarily dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant. Presumably, because attention of the learned Single Judge was not drawn to these documents 3 during the hearing of the writ petition. Be that as it may, there is additional reason why we are pursuaded to set aside the impugned decision and relegate the parties before the learned Single Judge. In that, there are two more writ petitions pending on the same subject matter being Writ Petition No.15658/2013 and Writ Petition No.18811/2013 already admitted and pending for final hearing before the learned Single Judge. No doubt the paper books of these writ petitions have been placed along with this appeal, but we would deem it appropriate to invite judgment of the learned Single Judge on the matters that may arise for consideration, in the context of the stand taken by the respective parties, including regarding applicability or otherwise of the concerned circulars and the scope of the circulars issued by the Government from time to time and in the context of the extant Regulations and Rules in vogue.
5. Accordingly, we allow this appeal and set aside the impugned decision. Further, the parties are relegated before the learned Single Judge by restoring the writ petition No.18535/2011 to the file to its original number. To be heard along with Writ petition No.15658/2013 and Writ Petition No.18811/2013.
6. During the hearing, the counsel for the appellant having realised that the averments in the writ petition are not complete and more so proper pleadings with reference to the Circulars in which reliance has been placed by the petitioner (appellant), has submitted that the appellant may consider of amending the writ 4 petition.
7. We are also informed that the petitioners in the said writ petitions are over 75 years of age. In that case, the Registry shall process all the three writ petitions together, to be heard analogously under caption Writ (Civil) : Service Matters -
"Retiral Benefits 16 (i)/High Court Expedited Cases (2)/ Other Than Above (20) or Senior Citizen More than 75 years old (3), whichever is earlier.
8. Registry is directed to process the matters after appropriate order is passed on proposed amendment application.
9. Amendment application be moved within two weeks from today. That application be listed on 28.07.2015 under caption "Order" for consideration.
Appeal is disposed of accordingly.
W.P. No.15658/2013 and W.P. No.18811/2013 These writ petitions pertain to Single Judge jurisdiction. Hence, to proceed for final hearing before appropriate Bench in terms of the above order passed in W.A. No.704/2013.
To be heard analogously with restored W.P.
No.18535/2011.
(A. M. Khanwilkar) (K.K.Trivedi)
Chief Justice Judge
AM.