Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Gautam Mukherjee vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 19 January, 2023

Author: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia

Bench: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia

                                                                 1
                            IN      THE       HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                   AT JABALPUR
                                                     BEFORE
                                  HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GURPAL SINGH AHLUWALIA
                                                 ON THE 19 th OF JANUARY, 2023
                                                 WRIT PETITION No. 7161 of 2019

                           BETWEEN:-
                           GAUTAM MUKHERJEE S/O LATE S.C MUKHERJEE,
                           AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, OCCUPATION: SERVICE R/O F-
                           110/43 SHIVAJI NAGAR, DISTRICT BHOPAL (MADHYA
                           PRADESH)

                                                                                                .....PETITIONER
                           (BY SHRI AKSHAY PAWAR - ADVOCATE )

                           AND
                           1.    THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
                                 PRINCIPAL SECRETARY PUBLIC HEALTH AND
                                 FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT MANTRALAYA,
                                 BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

                           2.    PROJECT DIRECTOR M. P. STATE AIDS CONTROL
                                 SOCIETY 2ND FLOOR, TILHAN SANGH BUILDING
                                 1, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL 462011 (MADHYA
                                 PRADESH)

                           3.    M P STATE COOPERATIVE OIL SEED GROWERS
                                 FEDERATION    LTD. THROUGH ITS OFFICIAL
                                 LIQUIDATOR 1 ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL (MADHYA
                                 PRADESH)

                                                                                             .....RESPONDENTS
                            (SHRI DEVESH JAIN - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR THE
                           RESPONDENTS/STATE AND SHRI ADITYA KHANDEKAR - ADVOCATE
                           FOR RESPONDENT NO.3 )

                                  This petition coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
                           following:
                                                                  ORDER

This petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has been Signature Not Verified filed claiming that the petitioner is entitled to continue till the age of 62 years.

2. By an interim order, the petitioner was allowed to continue to serve the department after 60 years.

3. It is submitted by the counsel for the parties that the question as to whether the age of superannuation of employees of Oilfed, is 62 years or 60 years, is subjudice before the Supreme Court, but by virtue of interim order, the petitioner has served up to the age of 62 years and has retired even thereafter. It is submitted that even if it is held that the age of superannuation of employees of Oilfed, is 60 years, still in the light of the order dated 16/8/2019 passed by a Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No.1326/2019 (Munna Lal Rajak Vs. State of M.P.& Others), the salary paid to the petitioner for his extended period of service cannot be recovered and, therefore, for practical purposes, this petition has rendered infructuous.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

5. The Division Bench in the case of Munna Lal Rajak (supra) has set aside the direction for recovery with the following observations:-

"In view whereof, in the case at hand, as the petitioner had worked for the period from his actual date of retirement till the date of passing of order in Writ Petition by virtue of an interim order, he cannot be deprived of the wages of said period. He will be entitled for the wages as a right; though the period shall not be counted for other retiral dues. Consequently, the direction for recovery of the salary for the period from 01.04.2019 till the decision in Writ Petition is set aside."

6. In view of the law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No.1326/2019 (Munna Lal Rajak Vs. State of M.P.& Others), in which it was held that if an employee is allowed to continue for an extended period by virtue of interim order, then the salary paid to the employee for the extended period cannot be recovered, this Court is of the considered opinion that even if it is held that the age of Oilfed employee is 60 years, but still Signature Not Verified Signed by: TRUPTI GUNJAL Signing time: 25-01-2023 18:05:36 3 the salary paid to him for his extended period of service cannot be recovered, therefore, this petition has rendered infructuous.

7. It is, accordingly, dismissed as infructuous.

(G.S. AHLUWALIA) JUDGE TG /-