HIGH counT ¢F cHHA'mseARH A'r Bluswa . Singie Eench : Han’ble ShriHL. Dattu, OJ. Writ Petition NO. 24% of 1W Petitioner T.S. Rao, aged about 64 yeais, Slo. Prabhakar Rao, Retired Accountant Janpad Panchayat, Katla, District’Biiaspur: M.P., re$ident of viHage Katla, Tehsil Korba, District Bilaspur, MP. Resgondgng Directar, PanchayamSocialWeifane, BhopaL' MP. Dy. Director, Panahavat 8: Sonia! Welfare, Collectmate, Bilaspur. 3. Collector, Bilaspur. 4. Janpad Panchayat Katla, Tehsil Kama, Distt. Bilaspur. Chief E<ecutive Omcer, Janpad Panchayat Kaila, Tehsil Korba, Distt. Bilaspur. Petition under Anioies 226/227 of the Constitution of india. Present: Shri Alok Nigam, counsei for the petitionei. ORAL ORDER _ (Passed on 24‘” April, 2007) The petitioner joined services as a~cierk in Janpaei $abha, Kathghora, Distt. Biiaspur in the year 1954. By an order dated 05.12.1972, he was absorbed in Janpad Panchayat, Kariaia. He retired from ’serviee on 01.01.1986. Being of the view that as he is entitled for certain terminal benefits such as pension, gratuity etc. the petitioner had approached the respondents. His request for granting terminal benehts like pension was rejected by the respondents. That is how, the petitioner is before this Court in this writ petition. V a K( 2. @ (2) Learned counsei appearing for the petitianer would submit thaz in view of Section 125 of Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Adhiniyam 1981, the petitioner is entitled to grant of pensicnary benefits. (3) First and foremost! tha aforesaid provision is oniy a repeaiing provision and the said provision would save certain enactments made earlier. The said provision would not provide for any payment of terminal banana to an employee who has retired from the service of Janpad Panchawt. (4) An identical issue had been raised by sane of the retired employees of Janpad Panchayat before the Madhya Pradesh High Court before reorganization of the State. The Madhya Pradesh High'Court being of the view that the employees working in Janpad Panonayat are not the employees of the State Govemment, and, therefore, not entitled for pensionary benehts and accordingly had rejected the request of simiiaity situated employees. (See danpad Penetrayat and ziia ganghwa‘t Karmagharl Sangh and others V5. State of MP. & Ore). (5) After going through the judgment delivered by me Madhya Pradesh High Court, l am in full agreement with decision taken by the Court in that view of the matter, the relief sought for by the petitioner cannot be granted. Aocordingiy, the writ petition is rejected. However, iiberty is reserved to the petitioner to claim the gratuity before the respondents if oermissibte. Ordered accordingly. J‘w, Sdl- Chief Justice