W.P. No. 10575/2012. Case: Ravindra Brahman Vs State of M.P. and Ors.. High Court of Madhya Pradesh (India)
| Case Number | W.P. No. 10575/2012 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Manoj Chandurkar, Advocate and For Respondents: Sonali Shrivastava, Panel Lawyer |
| Judges | Sujoy Paul, J. |
| Issue | Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) - Section 11; Constitution of India - Articles 141, 226, 32 |
| Judgement Date | February 06, 2017 |
| Court | High Court of Madhya Pradesh (India) |
Order:
Sujoy Paul, J.
-
In this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, petitioner has prayed for a direction to the respondents to release the benefit of Special Allowance of Rs. 1,000/- in accordance with the circular dated 6.9.2008. It is further prayed that the respondents be directed to recalculate and pay the amount of gratuity to the petitioner. In short, the case of the petitioner is that he was working as a Chowkidar on daily rated basis. The respondents retired him on attaining the age of 60 years on 31.5.2008. This action was challenged by petitioner by filing WP No. 8623/2008 which was decided on 22.2.2010 in favour of the petitioner (Annexure P/1). The petitioner was directed to be reinstated with all consequential benefits. This Court directed the respondents to permit the petitioner to work upto the age of 62 years.
-
The respondents did not comply with the order passed by this Court in aforesaid writ petition. This compelled the petitioner to file Contempt Petition No. 691/2010. Meanwhile, respondents paid the amount of Rs. 1,03,636/- to the petitioner towards back wages for the period between 1.6.2008 to 31.5.2010. The petitioner contends that the respondents although have paid the amount of gratuity to the petitioner, the gratuity was calculated by treating his services upto 31.5.2008 in place of 31.5.2010. The petitioner's application for grant of proper gratuity by treating his date of retirement as 01.05.2010 went in vain.
-
The petitioner is also claiming the benefit of circular dated 6.9.2008 Annexure P/4 whereby the department sanctioned Special Allowance of Rs. 1,000/- to such daily rated employees who have completed 20 years of service. To claim this benefit, petitioner preferred another representation dated 3.10.2011 which also could not fetch any result. The claim of the petitioner was rejected by order dated 5.7.2012 Annexure P/6. The respondents contended that since the petitioner stood retired in May, 2008 on completion of 60 years of service, he is not entitled to get Special Allowance which was applicable with effect from September, 2008.
-
Shri Manoj Chandurkar, learned counsel for the petitioner advanced singular contention. He submits that once the order passed in WP No. 8623/2008 has attained finality, it is no more open to the respondents to treat the petitioner as retired with effect from May, 2008. For all practical purposes, petitioner should be treated as retired on 31.5.2010. More so, when respondents have already paid back wages to the petitioner for the intervening period between 1.6.2008 to 31.5.2010.
-
The learned Panel Lawyer opposed the relief by contending that view taken by this Court in WP No. 8623/2008 is not correct because law has been changed in 2011 (4) MPLJ 86 (Badri v. State), a Division Bench of this Court held that daily rated employees are not entitled to continue upto the age of 62 years. Reliance is also...
To continue reading
Request your trial