R.P. No. 253/2016. Case: Indore Municipal Corporatio Vs Shashikant Tulapurkar. High Court of Madhya Pradesh (India)

Case NumberR.P. No. 253/2016
CounselFor Appellant: Aniket Naik, Learned Counsel and For Respondents: Rajendra Kumar Shukla, Learned Counsel
JudgesS.C. Sharma, J.
IssueCode of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) - Sections 1, 113, 114, 2, 33, 47, 7; Constitution of India - Articles 14, 16
Judgement DateFebruary 06, 2017
CourtHigh Court of Madhya Pradesh (India)


S.C. Sharma, J.

  1. Heard on IA No. 7293/2016 which is an application for condonation of delay. The same is allowed.

  2. Heard on merits.

  3. The present review petition has been filed by the Indore Municipal Corporation, Indore for reviewing order dt. 8/4/2015 passed in Writ Petition No. 2238/2015 by which this Court has directed the Indore Municipal Corporation, Indore to grant benefit of 2nd kramonnati to the petitioner keeping in view the judgment delivered in the case of Smt. Prerna Khoranne v. State of M.P. And others (W.P. No. 2238/2015, decided on 26/4/2007).

  4. Mr. Naik, learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued before this Court that the State Government by order dt. 23/4/2000 has made applicable the Scheme of Kranonnati in respect of Municipal Council employees and in the Indore Municipal Corporation, Indore the same was made applicable w.e.f. 31/12/2006 and, therefore, the question of grant of kramonnati to the petitioner does not arise as he has attained the age of superannuation on 30/11/2006.

  5. This Court has carefully gone through the documents filed by the applicant - Indore Municipal Corporation, Indore. However, the fact remains that the Corporation has adopted the policy of the State Government to grant kramonnati. Not only this, in the case of Smt. Prerna (supra), the issue regarding applicability of the policy was also considered and this court has arrived at a conclusion that the petitioner therein is not entitled for the benefit of kramonnati from the date of issuance of letter, but on the contrary with retrospective effect.

  6. In the present case, the cut-off date fixed by the State Government was also quashed.

  7. In the present case, this Court is of the considered opinion that once the Corporation has adopted the circulars issued by the State Government dt. 21/3/1983 and 19/4/1999, it has to be implemented with respect to Corporation employees in the same manner and method it has been made applicable to the State Government employees.

  8. Not only this, in the case of State of M.P. And others v. Mala Banerjee reported in [2016 (1) MPLJ 246], the issue was for postponing the benefit of grant of kramonnati by 4 years, and the State Government has departed with the basic object of the Scheme and the Hon'ble Supreme Court has dismissed the S.L.P. preferred by the State Government. Paragraph 7 and 8 of the aforesaid judgment reads as under:

    7. We also find ourselves unable to agree with the Appellants submission that this is a policy matter and, therefore, should not be interfered with by the Courts. In Federation of Railway Officers Association v. Union of India (2003) 4 SCC 289, this Court has already considered the scope of judicial review and has enumerated that where a policy is contrary to law or is in violation of the provisions of the Constitution or is arbitrary or irrational, Courts must perform their constitutional duties by striking it down. The Appellants have not been able to explain why it chose to deny teachers the benefit of the second Kramonnati while granting this benefit to all other employees, thus discriminating against them and violating their fundamental rights enshrined in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. It is indeed paradoxical that teachers who prepare persons for employment and leadership are dealt with in a periodical attitude by the State. Further, we reiterate that no explanation is forthcoming for granting the second Kramonnati with effect from 1.8.2003. This is neither the date in the original scheme nor justifiable on the basis of any other material available on the record. Many employees had completed twenty four years of service by 1999; therefore, in postponing their second Kramonnati by four years, the Appellants have departed from the basic object of the Scheme. The 3.9.2005 Order failed to explain the basis of this decision, and is thus arbitrary in nature and discriminatory towards the Respondents and others in their position.

    8. The annals of this litigation also need to be considered in some detail. The arguments ventilated before us were considered in detail by the Writ Court in Smt. Prerna v. State of Madhya Pradesh, which was decided on 26.4.2007 by a learned Single Judge of that High Court at its Indore Bench. Thereafter, another learned Single Judge of that High Court at its Gwalior Bench decided the present Writ Petitions from which these Appeals/Petitions arise in favour of the Respondents vide its Judgment dated 16.10.2007. Although the reasoning that has persuaded the second learned Single Judge to decide in favour of the Respondents is evident from the perusal of that Judgment, reliance on the Judgment dated 26.4.2007 passed in Smt. Prerna had been duly considered. We must immediately emphasise that a Bench should ordinarily follow the decision of a Coordinate Bench or...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT