Madhya Pradesh High Court
The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Jagbandhan Prasad on 2 September, 2014
Writ Appeal No :: 720 / 2011
State of MP and others Vs. Jagbandhan Prasad
02.09.2014.
Shri Rahul Jain, learned Deputy Advocate General, for the
State/appellants.
Shri K.N. Pethia for the respondent/employee.
Calling in question tenability of an order dated 30.8.2010 passed by the writ Court in Writ Petition No. 10628/2009(S), this appeal has been filed by the State Government under section 2(1) of the MP Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyayapeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005.
It is pointed out by Shri Rahul Jain, learned Deputy Advocate General, that the learned writ Court has allowed the claim of the respondent employee for grant of pension based on a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Shrikrishna Shrivastava Vs. State of MP and others, 2003 (4) MPLJ 376, without adverting to consider the law laid down by the Full Bench of this Court, in the case of Mamta Shukla Vs. State of MP, 2011 (3) MPLJ 210.
It is argued by learned Deputy Advocate General that in the case of Mamta Shukla (supra), the principle laid down in the case of Shrikrishna Shrivastava (supra) has been considered and a different view having been taken, the learned writ Court committed an error in deciding the matter contrary to the principle of law laid down in the case of Mamta Shukla (supra). Accordingly, Shri Jain seeks for interference into the matter.
Shri K.N. Pethia, learned counsel for the respondent/employee, refutes the aforesaid and argued that the learned writ Court in various other cases, including Writ Petition 2 No. 3495/2009(S) decided on 27.8.2010, has adverted to consider the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh (Work Charged & Contingency Paid Employees) Pension Rules, 1979 and in certain cases where the employees have not completed 10 years of service, pensionary benefits have been granted and as these judgments have been upheld by the Supreme Court, learned counsel submits that no indulgence be made in the matter.
We have considered the rival contentions and we find that in the order impugned dated 30.8.2011, passed by the learned Writ Court in W.P. No. 10628/2009(S), reliance is placed on the judgment rendered by the Division Bench in the case of Shrikrishna Shrivastava (supra) and the matter is decided. There is no reference to the rule position or any other aspect of the matter. However, as the judgment rendered in the case of Shrikrishna Shrivastava (supra) has been overruled or dissented from, by the Full Bench in the case of Mamta Shukla (supra), the grant of pensionary benefits to the respondent employee has to be tested in the light of the law laid down in the case of Mamta Shukla (supra) and as the said exercise has not been undertaken, it is a fit case where the matter requires reconsideration and, therefore, we deem it appropriate to remand the matter back to the learned writ Court to reconsider the matter in the light of the law laid down by the Full Bench in the case of Mamta Shukla (supra). Respondent employee is free to bring to the notice of the learned Court the rule position, the other judgments in the matter which can be considered by the writ Court after taking note of the law laid down in the case of Mamta Shukla (supra).
3Accordingly, this appeal is allowed. Order impugned dated30.8.2010, passed in Writ Petition No. 10628/2009(S) is quashed and the matter is remanded back to the writ Court with a request to decide the same afresh in accordance with law.
CC as per rules.
(RAJENDRA MENON) (A.K SHARMA)
JUDGE JUDGE
Aks/-